UC-NRLF 


B  ^  M'^a  Dbb 


^be  xaniversiti?  of  Cbicago 

FOUNDED  BV  JOHN  D.  ROCKKFBLLBR 


THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN 
CONSOLATIO 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO    THE    FACULTY   OF   THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    OF    ARTS 

AND   LITERATURE    IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE 

OF    DOCTOR    OF   PHILOSOPHY 

(department  of  latin) 


BY 

EVAN  T.  SAGE 


UN'IVERSITY 


CHICAGO 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
1910 


TTbe  "Clniversitp  ot  CbfcaQo 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN 
CONSOLATIO 


A  DISSERTATION 
SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    SCHOOL    OF    ARTS 

and  literature  in  candidacy  for  the  degree 
of  doctor  of  philosophy 

(department  of  latin) 


BY 

EVAN  T.  SAGE 


CHICAGO 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
1910 


Copyright  1910  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


Published  February  1910 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.  S.  A. 


TO 

L.  S.  S.  L.  E.  S. 

W.  L.  S.  S.  M.  S. 

IN   GRATEFUL   ACKNOWLEDGMENT   OF   SYMPATHY 
AND   ENCOURAGEMENT 


2393G8 


PREFACE 

The  ultimate  origin  of  this  dissertation  may  be  found  in  the  interest 
in  epideictic  literature  aroused  by  a  seminar  study  of  the  Agricola  of  Tacitus 
under  Professor  G.  L.  Hendrickson,  then  of  Chicago,  now  of  Yale.  Added 
to  this  was  the  curiosity  which  any  anonymous  document  must  inspire, 
especially  one  of  literary,  historical,  or  even  merely  antiquarian  interest. 

I  desire  to  record  my  gratitude  to  the  Bibliotecario  of  the  Biblioteca 
Civica,  Bergamo,  Italy,  for  ready  and  courteous  assistance  given  me 
while  a  student  there,  and  later;  to  Dr.  B.  L.  Ulhnan,  of  the  University 
of  Chicago,  particularly  for  material  gathered  by  him  while  abroad;  to 
Professor  G.  J.  Laing  and  Dr.  C.  H.  Beeson,  of  the  University  of  Chicago, 
for  timely  assistance  and  valuable  criticism;  and  especially  to  Professor 
Hendrickson,  at  whose  suggestion,  and  under  whose  direction,  the  work 
was  done.  It  is  but  just  to  add  that  the  distance  and  almost  continuous 
separation  between  us  during  the  progress  of  the  work  have  deprived  it  in 
no  small  degree  of  the  benefits  of  his  sound  judgment  and  searching  criti- 
cism, which  would  have  removed  many  blemishes. 

Evan  T.  Sage 
University  of  Idaho 
March,  1909 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I  append  a  brief  list  of  the  works  to  which  reference  is  made  most  fre- 
quently, and  in  most  abbreviated  form:  Schulz  De  Ciceronis  Consolatione, 
Diss.  {Schidz);  Schneider  De  Ciceronis  Consolatione,  Diss.  {Schneider); 
Buresch  "  Consolationum  a  Graecis  Roman'sque  Scriptarum  Historia 
Critica,"  in  Leipziger  Studien  zur  kl.  Phil.  IX.  5  ff.  (Buresch).  For  the 
Consolatio  itself,  the  Nobbe  edition  was  used,  chiefly  because  the  text 
therein  is  divided  into  sections.  I  have  used  also  the  editions  of  Ernesti 
and  Klotz,  various  older  editions,  as  that  in  the  Opera  of  Sigonius,  ed.  1757, 
and  that  in  the  Gothofredus  Cicero  of  1 588,  and  a  few  of  the  early  editions 
enumerated  on  p.  7.  Nobbe's  text  with  the  exception  of  some  changes 
in  punctuation  was  followed  closely.  The  sixteenth-century  controversial 
literature  was  derived  mainly  from  the  1757  edition  of  Sigonius.  The 
fragments  are  cited  from  the  Teubner  text  of  Muller.  Other  bibliographi- 
cal material  will  be  found  in  the  appropriate  places. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction xi 

CHAPTER 

I.   The  Consolation  Down  to  the  Time  of  Cicero    .       .  i 

II.  History  of  the  Pseudo-Ciceronian  Consolatio      .       .  7 

III.  Structure  of  Our  Consolatio 10 

IV.  Authenticity  of  Our  Consolatio 25 

V.   Conjectures  as  to  the  Author 47 

Appendix  A.   Consolations  and  Laudations  in  the  Renais- 
sance         59 

Appendix  B.    Clausulae    , 62 


INTRODUCTION 

About  the  beginnincr  of  the  year  1583  there  was  published  in  Venice, 
by  a  certain  Vianello,  under  the  name  of  Cicero,  the  Consolatio  we  are  to 
study.  For  a  year  it  was  a  never-failing  topic  of  discussion,  and  then  it 
passed  from  the  thoughts  of  men.  Since  then  references  to  it  have  been, 
with  few  exceptions,  casual  and  incidental.  Despite  the  magic  of  the  name 
of  Cicero,  despite  the  importance  of  the  consolation  in  the  history  of 
literature,  our  Consolatio  is  almost  unknown.  The  assumption  of  spurious- 
ness  now  universally  and  tacitly  made  seemed  to  lack  sufficient  basis,  and 
a  re-examination  of  the  evidence  seemed  desirable.  Ideally,  the  question 
of  the  authenticity  of  our  Consolatio  should  have  been  settled  at  the  time 
of  its  publication:  some  scholar  in  possession  of  all  the  necessary  facts, 
and  equipped  with  all  the  necessary  powers  of  imagination,  combination, 
and  divination,  would  have  solved  the  problem  once  and  for  all.  When 
later  generations  approach  such  a  question,  the  earlier  discussions  and 
assumptions,  however  futile,  inevitably  leave  a  penumbra  of  unconscious 
prejudice.  Yet  these  earlier  attempts  to  answer  the  question  are  not  to 
be  neglected;  the  illuminating  flash  may  as  well  come  from  a  scholar  of 
the  sixteenth  century  as  from  a  student  of  the  twentieth.  Lacking  this 
ideal  condition,  the  only  resource  of  the  student  of  authenticity  is  to  re- 
examine, with  all  possible  care,  all  the  evidence  it  is  possible  to  accumulate, 
without  reference  to  any  assumption  of  spuriousness,  and,  if  possible,  with- 
out prejudice  therefrom.  In  the  present  case,  to  counteract  any  such 
prejudice,  the  makeshift  substitute  has  been  adopted  of  assuming  the  docu- 
ment genuine  until  proved  spurious,  putting  the  burden  of  proof,  so  to 
speak,  on  the  prosecution.  The  resultant  attitude  of  mind  is  of  course 
only  an  approximation  to  the  ideal  entire  impartiality. 

I  propose  first  to  inquire  into  the  state  and  quantity  of  consolatory 
literature  in  Cicero's  time,  to  furnish  us  with  a  background  for  further 
study;  second,  to  examine  the  external  history  of  our  Consolatio;  third, 
to  attempt  to  make  out  its  structure  and  relation  to  other  literature;  fourth, 
to  investigate  the  question  of  its  authenticity,  and  then,  if  it  proves  spurious, 
to  try  to  assign  a  date  for  its  composition.  The  principle  of  work  and  of 
presentation  has  been  to  consider  all  the  evidence  possible,  and  to  present 
typical  specimens  when  the  bulk  of  material  of  one  sort  was  prohibitive; 
to  apply  all  the  tests  that  could  be  devised;  and  finally,  to  submit  the  evi- 
dence and  the  results  in  such  a  form  that  the  reader's  conclusions  may  not 
be  unduly  influenced  by  mine.  In  this  way  alone,  it  seems  to  me,  may 
real  progress  be  made  toward  the  solution  of  the  problem. 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  CONSOLATION  DOWN  TO  THE  TIME  OF  CICERO 

The  student  of  any  Roman  literary  type  is  of  course  interested  in  the 
sources,  not  only  of  the  ideas  presented,  but  also  of  the  form  chosen  for  the 
presentation.  Obviously  such  a  type  as  the  consolation  is  intimately 
related  to  certain  other  types  like  the  laudation,  the  threnos,  etc.,  and  prop- 
erly should  not  be  separated  from  them  in  a  complete  study  of  sources. 
The  connections  of  any  species  of  literature  are  so  numerous  and  so  wide- 
spread that  a  special  investigation  is  necessary  for  each,  and  no  casual 
statement  can  be  adequate  and  complete.  We  may,  however,  indicate 
in  a  general  way  the  affiliations  of  the  consolation,  and  so  form  some  idea 
of  the  possible  sources,  though  here  some  other  elements  must  be  taken 
into  account.  We  shall  in  the  present  discussion  not  concern  ourselves 
much  with  the  identification  of  sources  in  particular,  especially  since,  as 
the  following  vdll  bring  out,  such  an  identification  may  easily  be,  and  usually 
has  been,  carried  too  far.  It  is  true  that  for  an  occasional  distinctive  point 
of  view  a  definite  philosophical  provenance  may  be  made  out,  sometimes 
with  certainty,  but  in  a  field  like  that  of  consolation,  the  ideas  are  of  such 
universal  character  that  a  high  degree  of  uncertainty  with  regard  to  origin 
is  inevitable. 

In  connection  v^dth  the  problem  of  the  sources  of  Cicero's  Consolatio, 
that  of  the  sources  of  the  Tusculans  becomes  of  some  interest.  The  exact 
relationship  between  the  two  it  is  probably  now  impossible  to  determine: 
the  general  similarity  of  subject,  the  frequent  references  to  the  Consolatio 
in  the  Tuscidans,  and  other  data  compel  the  universal  conclusion  that  a 
connection,  more  or  less  close,  does  exist.  Yet  the  question  of  the  sources 
of  the  Tusculans  is  too  complicated,  and  the  promised  results  too  meager, 
to  make  a  full  discussion  here  profitable.  The  question  has  been  fully 
debated  in  well-known  articles  by  Corssen,  Heine,  Schmekel,  Kiihner, 
Reinhardt,  Kayser,  Hirzel,  Tischer,  Rohde,  and  Buresch.  The  most  recent 
contribution  is  that  of  Rubrichi,  in  Rivista  di  Storia  Antica,  N.  S.  XI.  loo 
fif.,  who  beUeves  that  Plato  is  the  direct  source  for  the  principal  arguments, 
while  Chrysippus,  Plutarch  (!),  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  and  others  were 
drawn  upon  for  illustrative  material.  The  perusal  of  these  conflicting 
interpretations  does  not  tend  toward  simpUfying  the  problem,  nor  is  it  pos- 
sible that  new  light  will  be  thrown  upon  it.  However,  a  concrete  example 
of  Cicero's  method  of  attacking  a  philosophical  problem  may  be  of  some 


2  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

interest,  both  for  the  Tusculans  and  for  the  Consolatio.  Pliny  {N.  H., 
pref.  22)  quotes  from  Cicero's  Consolatio  the  words,  "Crantorem  sequor," 
and  the  fact  is  repeated  by  Hieronymus  Ep.  Ix.  5  (Migne  I.  592).  In  Phny 
this  has  all  the  characteristics  of  a  direct  quotation,  and  it  doubtless  is  so,  as 
all  the  editors  of  the  Fragments  from  Patricius  down  have  believed  (Sigonius 
seems  to  have  omitted  it  from  his  collection,  though  he  refers  to  it  in  his 
commentary).  This  would  seem  at  first  to  be  decisive,  and  has  been  con- 
sidered so,  but  wrongly,  as  Buresch,  p.  39,  Schneider,  p.  9,  Schulz,  pp.  22,  26 
and  n.  2,  have  hinted  on  general  grounds.  The  interpretation  of  the  quo- 
tation comes  naturally  enough  from  Cicero  himself.  Cicero  gives  us  a 
clear  account  of  his  method  of  work  in  two  letters  to  Atticus  (xii.  21.  5; 
xii.  14.  3).  In  the  former  he  writes  as  follows:  "neque  tamen  progredior 
longius  quam  mihi  doctissimi  homines  concedunt,  quorum  scripta  omnia 
quaecumque  sunt  in  eam  sententiam  non  legi  solum,  quod  ipsum  erat 
fortis  aegroti,  accipere  medicinam,  sed  in  mea  etiam  scripta  transtuU." 
He  says  practically  the  same  thing  in  the  second  letter:  "nihil  enim  de 
maerore  minuendo  scriptum  ab  ullo  est,  quod  non  domi  tuae  legerim." 
Cf.  Tusc.  iii.  31.  76.  In  this  passage  Cicero  has  just  related  the  different 
methods  of  different  schools,  and  continues:  "Sunt  etiam  qui  haec  omnia 
genera  consolandi  conhgant — alius  enim  alio  modo  movetur — ut  fere  nos 
in  Consolatione  omnia  in  consolationem  unam  coniecimus."  Whatever 
we  may  think  of  Hieronymus,  there  is  no  reason  to  discredit  the  statement 
of  Pliny,  barring  the  possibiUty  that  he  used  our  Consolatio,  which  contains 
the  words.  Crantor's  book  was  so  popular  that  Cicero  undoubtedly  used 
it,  especially  as  he  tells  us  that  he  had  read  it  {Acad.  ii.  44.  135).  What 
then  does  seqiii  mean?  Let  Cicero  answer:  De  off.  i.  2.  6:  ^'Sequemur 
igitur  hoc  quidem  tempore  et  hac  in  quaestione  potissimum  Stoicos,  non 
ut  interpretes,  sed,  ut  solemus,  e  fontibus  eorum  iudicio  arbitrioque  nostro, 
quantum  quoque  modo  videbitur,  hauriemus."  Cf.  De  off.  ii.  17.  60: 
"Panaetius,  quem  multum  in  his  libris  seciUus  sum,  non  interpretatus," 
and  De  off.  iii.  2.  7:  "Panaetius,  quem  ....  secuti  sumus.'^  If  we  may 
safely  draw  conclusions,  Cicero  in  his  Consolatio  used  Crantor  only  as 
a  general  guide,  probably  adding  material  of  his  own  at  will,  particularly 
examples  from  Roman  history,  and  modifying  from  other  sources.  Is  it 
possible  that  the  method  of  the  Tusculans  was  essentially  the  same? 
Finally  let  me  commend  to  students  of  the  question  Tusc.  iv.  4.  7:  "Sed 
defendat  quod  quisque  sentit;  sunt  enim  iudicia  libera;  nos  institutum 
tenebimus,  nullisque  unius  discipHnae  legibus  adstricti,  quibus  in  philo- 
sophia  necessario  pareamus,  quid  sit  in  quaque  re  maxime  probabile, 
semper  requiremus." 


THE  CONSOLATION   TO   THE   TIME   OF   CICERO  3 

The  history  of  the  consolation  has  been  thoroughly  studied  from  most 
points  of  view  by  Buresch,  and  no  repetition  of  his  work  is  to  be  attempted 
here.  We  may  however  inquire  into  the  state  of  consolatory  literature  in 
the  time  of  Cicero,  to  learn  what  material  was  available  for  him,  and  what 
predecessors  he  had  had  in  this  field  of  activity.  A  long  fine  of  philosophers 
had  given  their  names  to  essays  on  this  and  related  subjects,  among  whom 
the  academician  Grantor  had  won  the  greatest  fame.  Probably  he  deserves 
more  than  the  passing  notice  he  has  received.  Among  his  most  famous, 
and  perhaps  deservedly  famous,  works,  was  the  De  luctu,  which  won  for 
him  high  praise  in  antiquity.  See  Cicero  Acad.  ii.  44.  135:  "Legimus 
omnes  Crantoris  veteris  Academici  de  luctu;  est  enim  non  magnus,  verum 
aureolus,  et,  ut  Tuberoni  Panaetius  praecipit,  ad  verbmn  ediscendus  libel- 
lus;"  and  Diog.  Laert.  iv.  27.  Crantor  would  seem  to  have  summed  up 
in  this  essay  all  that  previous  generations  of  philosophers  had  accompHshed 
in  the  line  of  consolation,  if  we  may  safely  reason  from  a  certain  eclecticism 
which  seems  discernible  (cf.  Kayser  De  Crantore  Academico,  Heidelberg 
Diss.,  1841,  p.  3;  Martha  Etudes  morales  sur  Vantiquite,  p.  142).  It  was 
therefore  well  adapted  to  such  a  use  as  that  to  which  Cicero,  and  doubtless 
others  now  unknown,  put  it,  not  only  from  its  content,  but  from  the  charm 
of  its  style. 

But  Crantor  was  only  one  of  a  long  hne  of  philosophers  who  had  essayed 
to  console  others  for  their  misfortunes.  It  was  not  at  all  strange  that  the 
philosophers  should  have  engaged  so  freely  in  the  work  of  consolation, 
considering  the  part  which  philosophy  played  in  ancient  life.  It  was  to 
the  philosopher  that  one  naturally  looked  for  such  spiritual  or  quasi-spiritual 
assistance,  and  he  of  course  tried  to  meet  such  a  demand.  Not  many 
people  in  all  probability  would  have  listened  to  such  advice  as  that  of  Car- 
cinus  (frag.  7  Nauck): 

TToXAwv  yap  a.v6pu)Tr0L(TL  (ftdpfJiaKOV  KaKwv 
o"ty>/,  p-aXicTTa  8'  ecrrt  (j<ji<^povo<i  Tpoirov. 

It  was  natural  too  that  the  different  schools,  after  the  time  when  schools 
came  into  existence,  and  different  philosophers  always,  should  have 
approached  the  subject  in  different  ways,  to  meet  the  varying  needs  of  their 
clients,  and  in  accordance  with  the  points  of  view  which  their  systems 
imposed  upon  them.  See  Cicero  Tusc.  iii.  31.  76:  "Sunt  qui  unum  officium 
consolantis  putent,  malum  illud  omnino  non  esse,  ut  Cleanthi  placet; 
sunt  qui  non  magnum  malum,  ut  Peripatetici;  sunt  qui  abducant  a  malis 
ad  bona,  ut  Epicurus;  sunt  qui  satis  putent  ostendere  nihil  inopinati  acci- 
disse,  ut  Cyrenaici.     Chrysippus  autem  caput  esse  censet  in  consolando 


4  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

detrahere  illam  sententiam  maerenti  si  se  officio  fungi  putet  iusto  atque 
debito."  It  is  not  our  purpose  to  inquire  whether  these  different  styles  of 
arguments  deserve  the  derisive  comment  of  Martha  {op.  cit.,  p.  162) :  "Cha- 
que  ecole  se  moquait  des  arguments  de  I'autre,  et  il  faut  convenir  qu'en  cela, 
en  cela  seulement,  elles  avaient  toutes  raison."  Nor  need  we  investigate 
too  closely  the  differences  in  these  methods  of  treatment,  as  we  are  not 
attempting  a  definite  assignment  of  sources.  The  reasons  for  these  varia- 
tions are  easy  enough  to  understand.  The  range  of  ideas  that  are  properly 
consolatory  is  small,  and  before  the  change  in  the  point  of  view  brought 
about  by  Christianity,  was  smaller  still,  but  numerous  slight  differences  in 
the  form  or  thought  were  possible  for  different  individual  reasons — alius 
alio  modo  movetur.  Therefore  it  is  entirely  natural  that  there  should  have 
been  these  differences,  especially  as  the  formation  of  independent  schools 
aided  in  bringing  about  a  difference  of  alignment.  Despite  the  debate 
among  them,  the  philosopher  was  the  most  valued  consoler,  though  he 
was  not  the  only  professional  offerer  of  consolation.  For  the  rhetoricians 
at  an  early  date  made  incursions  into  this  field,  as  we  know  of  Antiphon 
from  Philostratus  Vit.  Soph.  i.  15.  We  have  other  evidence  of  activity 
of  this  sort  on  the  part  of  the  early  rhetoricians:  cf.  Cicero  Tusc.  i.  48.  116: 
"Alcidamas  quidem  rhetor  antiquus  in  primis  nobihs,  scripsit  etiam  lauda- 
tionem  mortis,  quae  constat  ex  enumeratione  humanorum  malorum;  cui 
rationes  eae,  quae  exquisitius  a  philosophis  conliguntur,  defuerunt,  ubertas 
orationis  non  defuit."  From  this  it  would  appear  that  the  rhetoricians 
were  less  favored  than  their  rivals.  The  next  sentence  in  Cicero  shows 
with  some  clearness  their  favorite  arguments:  "clarae  vero  mortes  pro 
patria  oppetitae  non  solum  gloriosae  rhetoribus,  sed  etiam  beatae  videri 
Solent."  Early  rhetorical  interest  in  the  forms  of  encomiastic  literature  is 
also  amply  vouched  for  by  the  Euagoras  of  Isocrates.  Possibly  consolation 
and  eulogy  formed  part  of  the  regular  courses  in  encomium  in  the  schools. 
Certainly  some  of  the  consolatory  topics  did  find  place.  Cf.  Cicero  Tusc. 
i.  47.  113:  "Deorum  immortalium  indicia  solent  in  scholis  proferre  de 
morte,  nee  vero  ea  fingere  ipsi,  sed  Herodoto  auctore,  aliisque  pluribus." 
Then  follow  the  stock  examples,  Cleobis  and  Bito,  Trophonius  and  Aga- 
medes,  etc.  This  is  designated  in  the  preceding  section  as  an  epilogus 
rhetorum.  For  later  times  there  is  abundant  evidence  in  favor  of  this  sug- 
gestion— the  presumption  afforded  by  the  Suasoriae,  the  treatise  of  Menan- 
der,  the  clever  praeteritiones  of  Hieronymus.  But  not  only  philosophers 
and  rhetoricians  offered  consolation,  but  also  an  occasional  poet,  like  Anti- 
machus,  who,  to  console  himself  for  the  death  of  Lyde,  wrote  an  account 
in  two  or  three  books  of  the  calamities  of  mythical  heroes  and  heroines. 


THE   CONSOLATION   TO   THE   TIME   OF   CICERO  5 

See  Ps.-Plut.  Cons,  ad  A  poll.  9,  and  Croiset  Histoire  de  la  litterature 
grecque  III.  653  flf.  This  may  serve  to  discredit  somewhat  Cicero's  assump- 
tion of  originality  in  self-consolation. 

In  the  nature  of  things  the  ideas  that  are  used  for  consolation  find  fre- 
quent expression  in  literature  that  is  not  primarily  consolatory.  In  a  litera- 
ture so  intimately  connected  with  death  and  the  thought  of  death  as  the 
Greek,  it  is  inevitable  that  such  thoughts  be  frequently  expressed.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  number  of  consolatory  ideas  was  small,  and  originality 
would  become  more  and  more  difficult  as  time  went  on.  This  paucity  of 
ideas  might,  and  doubtless  did,  have  two  sets  of  consequences:  ingenious 
variation  of  expression,  and  a  tendency  to  crystallize  into  formulae. 

Thucydides  has  summed  up  once  for  all  the  real  motive  of  eulogy  (ii.  45. 
i):  Tov  yap  ovK  ovra  uTras  etwOev  crratveiv.  Inseparable  from  this  is  the 
desire  to  console  the  living,  so  we  find  the  origin  of  these  related  customs 
in  human  nature.  As  these  experiences  and  desires  are  older  than  professed 
and  conscious  philosophy  and  rhetoric,  so  laudation  and  consolation  doubt- 
less existed  in  earlier  times,  though  philosophers  and  rhetoricians  soon  made 
them  their  province.  It  may  even  be  questioned  whether  the  character, 
if  not  the  form,  of  the  ideas  was  not  much  the  same  in  the  earlier  and  the 
later  periods,  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  finding  new  arguments.  The 
soldier  consoles  the  Widow  of  Ephesus  (Petronius  iii.  8)  with  the  same 
arguments  that  are  used  in  the  Tusculan  Disputations,  and  they  are  suffi- 
ciently plausible,  if  not  entirely  unsophisticated  and  artless.  Therefore 
the  dififerences  which  mark  the  different  philosophical  schools  need  not 
disturb  us:  we  are  not  now  attempting  a  philosophical  analysis  of  ideas, 
and  the  great  variety  of  places  in  which  consolatory  notions  are  presented 
precludes  any  thoroughgoing  and  convincing  assignment  of  sources.  It  is 
probable  that  even  within  a  sect  complete  harmony  is  not  to  be  looked  for; 
there  might  always  be  eclectics  like  Grantor,  and  Panaetius  is  said  to  have 
denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul  (Gicero  Tusc.  i.  32.  79).  On  the  other 
hand,  men  without  definite  philosophical  affifiations,  and  even  without 
conscious  philosophical  thought,  might  on  single  points  agree  with  the 
teachings  of  the  philosophers. 

Now  it  is  true  that  Grantor  might  furnish  a  convenient  source  for  ready 
reference,  and  have  the  additional  virtue  of  a  pleasing  style,  but  it  can  hardly 
be  true  that  he  made  any  great  innovations  in  the  material  or  the  form  of 
the  consolation,  and  what  we  know  of  the  character  of  his  work  (see  above, 
p.  3)  does  not  create  an  impression  of  originafity.  If,  therefore,  the  greater 
part  of  the  material  was  already  accessible,  as  seems  to  have  been  the  case, 
the  theory  that  Grantor  was  Gicero's  only  source  is  built  on  entirely  inade- 


6  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN  CONSOLATIO 

quate  grounds.  Equally  unjustifiable  is  the  attempt  to  reconstruct  Cicero's 
Consolatio  or  Grantor's  essay  by  choosing  what  is  common  to  the  Tusctdans 
and  the  Consolatio  ad  Apollonium.  We  have  seen  (p.  2,  above)  that  what 
looked  like  a  direct  statement  of  source  required  interpretation,  and  it 
seems  in  the  highest  degree  unsafe  to  assume  that  any  single  document  is 
the  only  source  for  another.  The  ideas  expressed  by  Grantor  must  have 
been  already  familiar  to  educated  people,  and  no  Greek  authority  can  with 
entire  safety  be  regarded  as  the  immediate  source  of  the  Roman  sepulchral 
inscriptions.  It  may  well  be  true  that  Grantor  was  Gicero's  principal 
authority:  the  theory  that  he  was  the  only  authority  seems  clearly  out  of 
harmony  with  the  existing  evidence,  and  should  not  be  used  as  a  foundation 
for  further  reasoning. 

As  any  speculation  on  the  other  sources  probably  employed  by  Gicero 
would  be  mere  conjecture  in  most  cases,  we  shall  not  attempt  to  assign 
particular  sources,  nor  to  assert  that  any  given  author  was  or  was  not  used 
by  him.  The  danger  of  such  theorizing  has,  I  hope,  been  sufficiently 
emphasized  in  the  preceding  pages.  The  eclecticism  of  Gicero  in  writing 
his  Consolatio  is  perhaps  sufficient  warning. 

It  is,  then,  unnecessary,  at  least,  to  assume  that  resemblance  in  form  of 
expression  of  a  consolatory  idea  implies  a  connection.  Both  may  have  a 
common  source,  or  both  may  draw  upon  the  common  stock  of  philosophy 
or  rhetoric.  We  shall  therefore  in  the  following  pages  generally  avoid 
statements  as  to  the  existence  of  a  relation,  by  reason  of  the  conviction  that 
such  a  procedure  is  not  justified  by  the  facts. 


CHAPTER  II 
HISTORY  OF  THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN  CONSOLATIO 

It  would  be  interesting  to  reproduce  in  full  the  discussion  of  this  docu- 
ment since  its  publication,  but  that  is  manifestly  impossible.  Whether 
it  existed  prior  to  1583  it  is  as  yet  impossible  to  say,  and  for  that  reason 
it  was  ignored  in  chap.  i.  The  consideration  of  that  and  related  questions 
must  be  left  for  a  later  chapter.  Our  present  undertaking  is  simply  to  give 
a  brief  account  of  the  known  history  of  the  book,  and  the  discussion  it 
provoked. 

The  exact  date  of  the  supposed  discovery  cannot  be  ascertained.  It 
is  commonly  said  to  have  been  1583,  though  asserted  by  some  (e.  g.,  Scharflf 
in  his  Ohservatio)  to  have  been  as  early  as  1581.  Riccoboni  wrote  in  his 
hidicium,  dated  iv.  Kal.  Mai.  1583,  of  its  appearance  "superiori  proximo 
anno,"  and  Sigonius  in  his  reply  (undated  but  surely  not  much  later) 
used  the  expression  "  superioribus  mensibus."  That  the  date  was  earlier 
than  1583  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  Lipsius  had  pronounced  his 
opinion  as  early  as  January,  1583  (Epistt.  cent.  I,  Misc.  99).  Scharff  was 
further  confused  by  his  belief  that  Gulielmus,  who,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
played  an  important  part  in  the  debate,  died  in  1 580,  but  the  exact  date  of 
the  discovery  is  of  consequence  mainly  in  the  interpretation  of  a  difficult 
letter  of  Sigonius  to  which  reference  will  be  made  later  (p.  48).  The  first 
edition  appears  to  be  dated  1 583 ;  it  was  published  in  Venice  by  a  certain 
Vianello,  an  "ignobilis  librarius"  of  whom  little  else  is  known.  Other 
editions  followed  in  quick  succession,  at  Paris,  Leyden,  Strassburg,  Frank- 
fort, and  elsewhere,  and  a  French  translation  by  Benoist  du  Troncy  in 
1584.  See  Deschamps  Essai  bibliog.  sur  Ciceron,  p.  104;  Scharfif  op.  cit. 
An  immediate  interest  was  aroused.  The  scholars  of  the  Renaissance, 
from  Petrarch  down,  had  sought  long  and  earnestly  for  the  Consolatio 
but  without  success.  The  enthusiasm  the  announcement  of  the  discovery 
evoked  may  well  be  imagined.  But  soon  there  were  suspicions,  and  no 
lack  of  suspicious  circumstances.  Letters  of  Vianello  and  Sigonius  are  of 
interest  in  this  connection.  Early  in  May,  1583,  Vianello  wrote  to  ask 
Sigonius'  opinion,  and  adds  "ob  eam  rem  sine  uUa  Praefatione  vel  Epistola 
editus  est,  ut  unicuique  Hberum  iudicium  relinqueretur  censendi  de  eo, 
quicquid  visum  fuisset."  Sigonius  repHed  almost  immediately,  that  he 
believed  the  book  genuine,  or  at  least  the  work  "alicuius  praestantissimi 
alterius."     "Quod  autem,"  he  continues,  "ubi  inventus  et  a  quo  editus 

7 


8  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

sit,  non  adiectum  sit,  multi  haudquaquam  rudes  et  imperiti,  fucum  prop- 
terea  factum  esse  verentur.  Quare  ad  eorum  advertendum  errorem 
elegante  admodum  feceris,  si  ipse  totam  huiusce  rei  historiam  comiter 
hominibus  exposueris,  quo  facto,  spero  me  facillime  assecuturum,  ut  incre- 
dulorum  istorum  impetum  non  solum  sustineam,  sed  etiam  felicissime 
comprimam."  (Both  letters  are  in  Sigonius  Opera,  ed.  1757,  VI.  883). 
Cf.  another  letter  from  Sigonius  to  Vianello  {0pp.  VI.  931):  "Reliquum 
est  ut  et  tu  mihi  persolvas,  quod  litteris  ad  me  vemacula  lingua  scriptis 
promisisti,  te  unde  hie  liber  erutus  sit,  prolaturum,  aut  eum,  a  quo  haec 
accepisti,  causam  suam,  quam  indigne  oppugnari  conqueritur,  suscepturum, 
ac  iustae  omniumque  cupiditati  satisfacturum."  The  promise  of  Vianello 
seems  never  to  have  been  kept,  and  the  defense  was  then  harder.  Yet  if 
this  was  the  cause  of  the  first  suspicions,  it  was  not  admitted.  The  accept- 
ance seems  to  have  been  at  first  unanimous,  and  the  reasons  for  the  change 
are  not  perfectly  clear.  The  failure  of  Vianello  to  produce  the  MS  would 
seem  to  us  suspicious.  Riccoboni,  however,  who  appears  to  have  been  the 
first  to  challenge  the  document,  scarcely  mentions  this,  though  Muretus 
and  Orsini  insisted  on  seeing  the  MS  before  believing.  Motives  are  hard 
to  find.  Professional  jealousy  seems  to  have  played  a  part.  De  Nolhac 
publishes  in  La  hibliotMque  de  Ftdvio  Orsini,  pp.  73  ff.,  also  in  "Piero 
Vettorio  et  Carolo  Sigonio,  Correspondance  avec  Fulvio  Orsini "  in  Sttidi  e 
Documenti  di  Storia  e  Diritto  X.  147,  a  letter  of  Sigonius  to  Orsini,  dated 
June  25,  1583:  "De  Gratia  ella  mi  scriva  anchora  I'opinione  Sua  sopra  la 
Consolatione,  percio  che  io  tengo  che  sia  di  Cicerone  et  odo  di  ogni  parte 
che  si  tiene  il  contrario.  Onde  sono  sforzato  a  difendere  questa  opinione 
per  honor  della  cathedra  di  Bologna,  poi  che  quella  di  Padoa  ha  sententiato 
il  contrario."  This  somewhat  polemic  tone  may  be  observed  in  another 
letter  to  Orsini,  dated  July  28,  1583  (De  Nolhac  Correspondance,  etc., 
pp.  148  £f.).  The  discoverer,  he  says,  was  willing  to  make  known  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  find,  and  adds,  "Io  aggiungo  a  V.  S.  che  a  me  le  opposi- 
tione  fatte  et  da  Roma  et  da  Padoa,  et  da  altri  luoghi  sono  parse  cosi  leggiere 
che  per  compassione  di  questo  libro  ho  preso  la  sua  difesa  ....  io  no 
conosco  persona,  a  questi  di  atta  a  fingere  cosi  bene,  et  quando  Io  vedro, 
Io  credero."  How  far  the  discussion  spread  is  unknown,  and  many  details 
are  vague.  Sigonius  seems  to  have  been  rather  unfortunate  in  his  advocacy, 
while  Riccoboni  was  reinforced  by  Gulielmus,  Lipsius,  and  others.  Natu- 
rally enough,  the  suggestion  was  soon  made,  perhaps  first  by  GuUelmus 
Assertio  adversus  C.  Sigonium,  p.  113,  etc.,  that  Sigonius  himself  was  the 
author,  or  had  helped  the  author.  This  charge  was  answered  by  the  state- 
ment that  the  MS  was  three  hundred  years  old,  though  nothing  was  done 


THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO  9 

with  regard  to  publishing  it.  The  debate  grew  hotter  and  hotter,  Sigonius' 
Orator  following  Riccoboni's  ludicumi,  Accusator  finding  a  ready  answer 
in  Defensor,  personalities  sometimes  finding  place,  though  Riccoboni  tact- 
fully asserted  that  he  had  no  reference  to  Sigonius,  but  to  the  anonymous 
author,  three  centuries  earlier.  The  proprieties  of  debate  were  also  well 
observed  when  Riccoboni,  taking  up  Sigonius'  eulogistic  characterization 
of  the  author,  pointed  out  the  appropriateness  of  the  compliments  to  Sigo- 
nius himself,  adding  that  he  personally  believed  the  book  so  bad  that  Sigonius 
could  not  possibly  have  written  it.  The  futiUty  of  such  debate  was  naively 
confessed  by  Riccoboni  when,  in  his  Defensor,  he  makes  Sigonius  say:  "Sen- 
tias  tu  quicquid  velis:  ego  quoque  idem  faciam."  The  theory  of  a  Sigonian 
origin  found  favor.  Lipsius  {Epistt.  cent.  I,  Misc.  66)  could  easily  recog- 
nize in  it  "illam  Sigoneitatem,"  though  ten  years  later  he  was  ready  to 
retract  and  admit  that  the  authorship  was  to  him  still  a  mystery  {Epistt. 
ad  It.  et  Hisp.  14).  The  debate  was  finally  terminated  by  the  death  of 
Sigonius  in  1584,  hastened,  some  said,  by  his  chagrin  at  being  found  out, 
and  a  rumor  found  currency  that  on  his  deathbed  he  had  confessed  the 
forgery.  See  a  letter  of  Latinus  Latinius,  referred  to  by  Ellis  CI.  Rev. 
VII.  197,  and  quoted  by  De  Nolhac  Correspondance,  etc.,  p.  149,  n.  5. 
This  theory  was  the  prevailing  one  as  late  as  i860:  cf.  Menzinus  De  litera- 
torum  hominum  invidia,  Florence,  1675;  Renouard  Annates  de  Vimpri- 
merie  des  Aides,  3d  ed.,  Paris,  1834;  Meier  in  an  address  of  1840  {Opusc. 
II.  266,  n.  23);  Schulz,  p.  5;  and  has  recently  been  revived  by  Farrer  in 
his  book  on  Literary  Forgeries.  He  contributes  no  new  arguments,  but 
considers  that  Tiraboschi  proved  that  Sigonius  was  the  author.  The 
general  trend  of  opinion,  however,  so  far  as  one  may  judge,  is  against  this 
theory.  The  detailed  arguments  for  and  against  it,  in  so  far  as  they  can- 
not be  inferred  from  the  preceding  sketch,  must  be  left  to  a  later  chapter, 
where  will  be  considered  also  the  other  opinions  which  have  been  expressed, 
viz.,  the  ascription  to  Vianello,  the  attempt  of  Ellis  toTefer  it  back  to  ancient 
times,  and  the  interesting  conjecture  to  which  Schulz  devotes  a  chapter  of 
his  dissertation,  that  the  author  was  Gasparino  Barzizza.  The  assumption 
of  spuriousness  thus  tacitly  made  has  as  yet  of  course  no  evidential  support, 
except  that  afiforded  by  the  suspicious  character  of  the  history  of  the  docu- 
ment. 


CHAPTER  III 

STRUCTURE  OF  OUR  CONSOLATIO 

While  provision  was  made  for  the  consolation  in  the  encomiastic  pro- 
grammes, as  we  can  see  from  Menander,  it  happens  that  our  extant  speci- 
mens usually  fail  to  reveal  in  any  clear  way  the  presence  of  the  encomiastic 
topics,  but  rather  fall  into  the  less  formal  arrangement  which  we  can  infer 
from  Cicero.  See  Tusc.  iii.  31.  75:  "Haec  igitur  officia  sunt  consolantium, 
toUere  aegritudinem  funditus,  aut  sedare,  aut  detrahere  quam  plurimum, 
aut  supprimere,  nee  pati  manare  longius,  aut  ad  alia  traducere;"  and  cf. 
Tusc.  iii.  32.  77:  "Erit  igitur  in  consolationibus  prima  medicina,  docere 
aut  nullum  malum  esse,  aut  admodum  parvum;  altera,  et  de  communi 
condicione  vitae,  et  proprie,  si  quid  sit  de  ipsius  qui  maereat,  disputandum ; 
tertia,  summam  esse  stultitiam  frustra  confici  maerore,  cum  intelligas  nihil 
posse  profici."  Schanz  {De  incerti  poetae  consolatione  ad  Liviam,  p.  19) 
gives  a  sufl&ciently  accurate  list  of  the  groups  of  ideas  frequently  found 
associated  in  consolations:  "Patientia  et  constantia;  Consolatio  per 
exempla;  Mors  mala  solvit;  Memoriae  decus;  Funerum  magnificentia; 
Immortalitas."  Such  a  list  is,  when  liberally  interpreted,  broad  enough 
to  cover  practically  the  whole  ground.  It  does  not  follow,  of  course,  that 
every  idea  in  a  given  consolation  must  or  can  be  referred  to  one  of  these 
categories,  or  that  all  of  these  are  to  be  found  in  every  consolation. 

In  this  chapter  the  effort  is  made  to  show  how  thoroughly  this  Consolatio 
embodies  the  usual  topics  of  consolations,  not  by  classifying  the  ideas  accord- 
ing to  the  above  or  any  other  scheme,  but  by  pointing  out  the  occurrence 
of  ideas,  similar  in  form  and  content,  in  other  pieces  of  literature.  I  should 
wish  at  the  outset  to  be  understood  as  denying  that  a  relation  necessarily 
exists  between  two  documents  expressing  a  similar  idea  in  similar  language 
(cf .  above,  p.  6) :  there  may  be  in  particular  cases  a  relation,  but  a  general 
assumption  is  unsafe.  I  simply  desire  to  show  the  prevalence  of  these 
ideas  in  literature,  and  to  indicate  some  of  the  sources  from  which  a  writer 
in  a  later  age  might  have  derived  inspiration  and  assistance.  No  attempt 
has  been  made  to  collect  all  the  examples  of  the  occurrence  of  a  given  notion. 
Such  a  task  would  have  been  almost  endless.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that 
a  sufl&ciently  wide  range  of  Hterature  has  been  covered  to  show  the  extent 
to  which  the  consolatory  ideas  permeate  ancient  literature.  The  Roman 
sepulchral  inscriptions,  which  have  been  discussed  by  Lier  in  a  series  of 
articles  in  Philologus,  Vols.  LXII  and  LXIII,  by  Cagnat  Rev.  de  PhiL 


STRUCTURE  OF  OUR  CONSOLATIO  II 

XIII.  51  flf.,  and  by  Tolman  in  a  contemporaneous  publication,  are  liere, 
in  general,  intentionally  omitted.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Greek  inscrip- 
tions, which  are  discussed  somewhat  by  Tolman. 

Let  us  begin  the  analysis  of  our  Consolatio: 

I.  Quamquam   recentibus  morbis   medicinam   adhibere   vetant   sapicntes.' 

Cf.  Tusc.  iv.  29.  63:  "quodque  vetat  Chrysippus,  ad  recentes  quasi 
tumores  animi  remedium  adhibere."  The  passage  was  used  by  Riccoboni 
in  his  Indicium,  to  prove  the  spuriousness  of  our  Consolatio,  the  indications 
being  the  substitution  of  morbis  for  tumores,  of  medicinam  for  remedium, 
and  by  the  omission  of  quasi.  For  the  use  of  a  similar  figure,  cf.  Seneca 
Cons,  ad  Marc.  1.3;  Ps.-Plut.  Cons,  ad  Apoll.  1. 

The  author  then  proceeds  to  point  out  the  advantages  of  having  the  mind  free 
from  care,  and  so  better  able  to  perform  its  proper  functions.  Consolation  is  one 
means  of  securing  this  state  of  mind.  The  works  of  Theophrastus,  Xenocrates, 
and  Grantor  are  mentioned  particularly  in  this  connection. 

The  third  has  been  discussed  sufi&ciently  for  our  purposes  in  chap.  i. 
All  are  well  known  from  other  sources,  and  are  discussed  in  Buresch, 
passim. 

Forced  to  such  a  course  by  the  death  of  his  daughter,  multa  quae  ab  illis  vel 
acute  cogitata,  vel  eleganter  enuntiata  sunt,  ad  dolorem  nostrum  abstergendum 
colligemus.  5.  Self-consolation  is  most  diflScult,  but  may  this  help  others  too, 
as  all  must  endure  the  same  fate,  according  to  human  nature.  Qui  enim  hominem 
se  esse  agnoscit,  hominisque  sibi  nomen  vindicat,  cur  ea,  quae  hominis  maxime 
propria  sunt,  recusare  ac  reicere  audeat  ?  6.  Atque  hie  locus  a  Theophrasto 
egregie  tractatus  et  perpolitus  est,  itemque  a  Xenocrate:  quorum  uterque  eos, 
qui  communes  casus  recusant,  imprudentiae  atque  iniustitiae  condemnat;  alter 
etiam  dis  ipsis  adversos  non  dubitat  appellare. 

One  of  the  commonest  notions  is  that  all  are  equal  before  death,  that  mis- 
fortune comes  to  all  alike,  and  may  be  escaped  by  none.  Associated  with 
this  is  the  belief  in  the  essential  mortality  of  man,  which  renders  him  liable 
to  misfortune,  disease,  and  death.  The  idea  that  no  one  can  escape  death 
is  especially  common.  A  convenient  summary  is  furnished  by  Cons,  ad 
Liviam  443:  "Sed  rigidum  ius  est,  et  inevitabile  mortis."  Cf.  Cicero's 
consolatory  letter  to  Titius  {Ad  Jam.  v.  16.  2):  "est  autera  consolatio  per- 
vulgata  ....  homines  nos  ut  esse  meminerimus  ea  lege  natos,  ut  omnibus 
telis  fortunae  proposita  sit  vita  nostra,  neque  esse  recusandum,  quo  minus 
ea,  qua  nati  sumus,  condicione  vivamus."     Cf.  Tusc.  iii.  33.  79:   "Ne  ilia 

I  English  or  Latin  words  or  passages  in  this  chapter  in  reduced  type  are  summaries, 
paraphrases,  or  quotations  of  the  text.     Comments  and  illustrations  are  not  so  reduced. 


12  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

quiclem  firmissima  consolatio  est,  quamquam  et  usitata  est  et  saepe  prodest: 
Non  tibi  hoc  soli."  That  no  one  can  escape  the  fate  of  man  is  a  frequent 
thought:  Ad  Jam.  iv.  5.4;  Hieron.  Epistt.  39.  3  (Migne  I.  468);  Seneca 
De  rem.  fort.  ii.  i;  Cons,  ad  Marc.  9.  5;  Cons,  ad  Polyb.  14.  2;  Petron. 
III.  8;  Stat.  Silv.  ii.  i.  208  fif.;  Pliny  Epistt.  i.  12.  2;  viii.  5.  3;  Cicero  Cato 
Mai.  19.  67;  20.  74;  and  such  expressions  in  the  inscriptions  as  "tu  qui 
legis  memento  te  esse  hominem ;  vale" :  Biicheler  71 .  Somewhat  more  fanci- 
fully stated  are  Catullus'  references  to  Hades:  "Illuc  unde  negant  redire 
quemquam"  (3.  12);  Cons,  ad  Liviam  357  fif.,  with  which  cf.  Petron.  121. 
117  ff.;  and  Horace  Car.  ii.  3.  25  ff.  In  Greek  the  idea  is  equally  common. 
Some  specimens  follow.  Interesting  as  a  favorite  quotation  of  Crantor, 
and  therefore  probably  in  his  De  luclu,  is  the  following:  olfx-oi-  rl  8'  ot/u.01; 
Ov-qTOi  Toi  TTvirovdafxev  (Eur.  Better.,  frg.  302  N;  cf.  Diog.  Laert.  iv.  26). 
That  this  formed  a  topic  in  Crantor's  book  is  vouched  for  by  Cons,  ad 
A  pott.  6:  Tov  Br]  X^-P'-^  irpaTroixeOa  iSevpo;  iv  elBtirjfiev  on  Kaivov  drvx^'iv 
ovBev  dvdptiiTrw  dXXa  Travres  ravTo  TTiTrovdafxev.  Cf .  an  inscription  of  Amorgos 
BCH.  XV.  574.  27  ff.,  with  which  cf.  ibid.,  pp.  577,  586,  and  588,  and 
Rohde  Psyche,  p.  628,  n.  3;  a  quotation  from  Menander  in  Cons,  ad  ApoU. 
5;  Lysias  Epitaphios  77,  cf.  Schneider,  p.  29;  Theogn.  1187  ff.  Bergk; 
Kaibel  Epigrammata  Graeca  ex  lapidihus  conlecta  567.  i;  Eur.  Androm. 
1270  fif.;  Phoen.  1763;  //icJ  vi.  488;  Cons,  ad  Apott.  i^;  etc.  Occasion- 
ally we  may  hear  a  second  Solon, 

OvtjtCjv  Se  fxr)Be.l<;  /xr^Sev'  oX/Slov  ttotc 
Kpiv-q,  rrplv  avTov  ev  reXevTrjaravT^  187;. 

— Dionysius  Leda,  frg.  3  N. 

Sometimes  the  survivor  is  advised  to  bear  his  misfortunes  with  courage: 
e.  g.,  in  the  inscription  of  Amorgos  referred  to  above,  and  Cicero's  consola- 
tion to  Sittius  (Adfam.v.i'j.T,):  "communem  incertumque  casum  .  .  .  . 
sapienter  ferres." 

7.  This  subject  has  been  discussed  by  many.  Sed  ego  Crantorem  sequor, 
cuius  legi  brevem  ilium  quidem,  sed  aureum  et,  ut  Panaetio  placuit,  ad  verbum 
ediscendum  de  luctu  librum,  quo  acute  universam  doloris  medicinam  complexus 
est. 

Cf.  Cicero  Acad.  ii.  44.  135,  quoted  on  p.  3,  above. 

Sed  humanae  naturae  incommoda  ita  diligenter  et  accurate  expressit,  ut, 
quasi  luendorum  scelerum  causa  nasci  homines  et  in  hanc  lucem  ingredi,  possis 
agnoscere. 

The  last  sentence  has  been  universally  accepted  as  a  fragment  of  the 
genuine  Consolatio  on  the  authority  of  Lactantius  Inst.  iii.  18.  18:  "Quid 


STRUCTURE   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  I3 

Ciceroni  faciemus  ?  qui  cum  in  principio  Consolationis  suae  dixisset 
luendorum  scelerum  causa  nasci  homines,  iteravit  id  ipsum  postea  quasi 
obiurgans  eum,  qui  vitam  non  poenam  esse  putet."  The  sentence  is 
repeated  in  sec.  28,  thus  fitting  in  with  the  statement  of  Lactantius.  For 
interpretations  of  the  relationship  and  its  bearing  on  the  question  of  authen- 
ticity, see  below,  p.  41. 

8.  The  author  then  begins  an  enumeration  of  the  various  misfortunes  appro- 
priate and  appertaining  to  the  different  aetates,  injantia,  pueritia,  adolescentia, 
constans  aetas,  of  which  the  author  himself  is  a  fair  representative,  seneclus. 

A  similar  arrangement  may  be  seen  in  the  Axiochus  366  D.  £f.,  though 
less  extensive. 

18.  Having  disposed  thus  of  the  aetates,  he  turns  to  the  genera  hominum, 
beginning  with  kings.  Of  these  Dionysius  is  a  good  example.  They  have  ever 
the  worries  of  the  kingship,  and  can  never  find  peace  of  mind.  Opposed  to  this 
class  is  the  infimum  genus,  which  has  the  lot  its  name  implies.  Sharing  the 
troubles  of  both  the  others  is  the  genus  mediocre.  23.  The  condition  of  women 
is  no  better,  but  perhaps  worse,  for  they  have  as  much  trouble  as  men,  and  less 
strength  to  bear  it.  They  suffer  with  their  parents  and  husbands,  as  TuUia  did. 
28.  Nostra  enim,  quae  dicitur  vita,  mors  est,  nee  umquam  vivit  animus,  nisi, 
compage  solutus  corporis  liber  aetemitate  potiatur. 

Cf.  Tusc.  i.  31.  75:  "Haec  quidem  vita  mors  est;"  and  Somn.  Scip. 
3.  6.  That  the  body  is  a  prison  is  an  idea  of  frequent  occurrence,  e.  g., 
Cicero  Tusc.  i.  30.  74;  Cato  Mai.  21.  77;  Ambrosius  De  excessu  fratris 
ii.  20,  cf.  Schenkl  "Zu  Ciceros  Consolatio  "  in  Wiener  Studien  XVI.  45. 

29.  Then  follow  the  stories  of  Cleobis  and  Bito,  Trophonius  and  Agamedes. 

These,  as  we  noted  above,  p.  4,  were  part  of  the  rhetorical  common 
stock.  The  Cleobis  story  is  told  by  Valerius  Maximus  v.  4,  Ext.  4; 
Axiochus  367  C;  Menander  414,  i  Spengel;  Cons,  ad  Apoll.  14;  Tusc. 
i.  47.  113.  The  second  story  is  also  widespread:  Axioch.  loc.  cit.;  Tusc. 
loc.  cit.;  Cons,  ad  Apoll.  loc.  cit.,  etc. 

31.  Death  is  the  end  of  a  miserable  life,  and  a  means  of  escape  from  future 
ills. 

This  also  is  extremely  common.  Seev4(//am.  v.  16. 4:  "Nonmehercule 
quern  quam  audivi  hoc  gravissimo  et  pestilentissimo  anno  adulescentulum 
aut  puerum  mortuum,  qui  mihi  non  a  dis  immortaUbus  ereptus  ex  his 
miseriis  atque  ex  iniquissima  condicione  vitae  videretur;"  Eur.  Antig., 
frg.  176  N:  ^avaros  yap  dvOpwiroia-t  v€tK€wv  reAos  £;(«.  Cf.  also  Soph. 
Philoc,  frg.  636  N;  Aesch.  Iket.  802  fif.;  Kaibel  op.  cit.  595.  4;  Axioch. 
367  BC;  Anacreon,  frg.  51  B;  Hieron.  Epistt.  60. 17  (Migne  I.  601);  Stob. 
Flor.  120,  27  Gaisford;   and  an  anonymous  poem  attributed  to  Aesopus 


14  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

in  Anth.  Pal.  x.  123.  Cf.  also  Schenkl  loc.  cit.  The  following  goes  one 
step  farther:  Xatpet  ns,  ©eoStopos  Itrti  ddfov  dAAos  ctt'  avrtS  ^aipijatf 
Oavdrw  iravTcs  64>eLX6fxe6a  (Simon.  i22  B=^»//i.  Pal.  X.  105). 

32.  The  Thracian  custom  of  mourning  birth  is  next  referred  to. 
This  was  another  of  the  consolatory  commonplaces.     Cf.  Cons,  ad  A  poll. 
22;  Ambrosius  De  excessu  fmtris  ii.  5;    Val.  Max.  ii.  6;  12;  13;  Schenkl 
op.  cit.,  p.  44. 

36.  Not  to  be  born  is  best,  but  second  to  that  is  to  die  as  soon  as  possible. 

This  is  illustrated  by  the  story  of  Silenus  and  Midas.  See  also  Tusc. 
i.  48.  114;  Cons,  ad  A  poll.  27;  Lact.  Inst.  iii.  19.  13  (here  quoted  directly 
as  a  fragment);  Ausonius  De  ambig.  vitae  50;  Theogn.  425  B;  Stob. 
Flor.  98.  27;  57  Gaisford;  Ambrosius  op.  cit.  ii.  30;  Schenkl  op.  cit.,  p.  45; 
Schneider,  p.  21.  Perhaps  the  most  interesting  of  these  is  the  passage 
in  Ambrosius,  who  attributes  the  sentiment  to  Solomon. 

38.  Although  what  follows  death  is  not  our  concern,  but  that  of  the  gods 
(for  how  will  they  who  care  for  the  living  forget  the  dead?),  let  us  consider  that 
question  briefly.  One  of  two  things  must  be  true:  death  brings  unconsciousness, 
or  it  transfers  us  to  some  other  place.  If  the  former  is  true,  and  death  is  like 
sleep,  it  is  a  blessing;  if  the  latter,  what  is  better  or  more  pleasant  than  to  be 
forever  with  our  departed  friends  ?     That  will  be  true  life. 

Death  and  sleep  are  frequently  compared,  e.  g..  Cons,  ad  Apoll.  12,  on 
the  authority  of  Socrates;  Cato  Mai.  22.  80;  Iliad  xiv.  231,  etc.;  Kaibel 
op.  cit.  559.  7;  loi.  4;  202.  i;  204.  7,  etc.;  Gorgias  ap.  Aelian  Var. 
hist.  ii.  35;  Anaxagoras  ap.  Stob.  Flor.  120.  19  G;  cf.  Rohde  Psyche 
80. 1  and  674.  2.  The  second  idea,  of  association  with  those  who  have  gone 
before,  suggests  much  of  the  ancient  thought  regarding  the  life  after  death : 
Seneca  Cons,  ad  Marc.  25.1:  "deinde  ad  excelsa  sublatus  inter  felices  currit 
animas,  Scipiones  Catonesque,  interque  contemptores  vitae  et  mortis 
beneficio  Hberos."  Cf.  Stat.  Silv.  ii.  6.  98  £f.;  Cato  Mai.  23.  84;  Theocr. 
Epigr.  7.  3  {  =  Anth.  Pal.  vii.  659).  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  immortality 
in  our  Consolatio,  see  below,  p.  21  (sec.  152). 

41.  Quod  certe  fortis  est  aegroti,  non  solum  accipere,  sed  etiam  exquirere, 
medicinam. 

Ci.adAtt.  xii.  21.5:  "quod  ipsum  erat  fortis  aegroti,  accipere  medi- 
cinam." 

42.  Death  is  common  to  mankind,  and  therefore  not  to  be  grieved.  Immod- 
erate grief  is  base,  unjust,  and  unmanly,  and  tears  accomplish  nothing. 

That  grief  is  useless  is  frequently  stated,  e.  g.,  by  Petronius  in.  8; 
Seneca  Cons,  ad  Polyb.  2.  i ;  Cons,  ad  Liviam  427,  428;  Propertius  iv.  11. 4; 


STRUCTURE   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  1 5 

Iliad  xxiv.  128  fif.;  AnacreonUa  34.  gff.;  Soph.  Incert.,  frg.  865  N;  Cons, 
ad  A  poll.  19;  etc.  One  may  perhaps  recognize  Stoic  influence  in  the 
thought  that  grief  is  not  worthy  of  a  man.  The  poets  sometimes  represent 
the  dead  themselves  as  urging  the  futility  of  grief,  e.  g.,  Propertius  iv.  ii.  i ; 
Ovid  Fasti  ii.  505  ff. ;  and  from  such  sources,  perhaps,  the  suggestion  was 
adopted  by  the  composers  of  epitaphs,  numerous  examples  of  which  are 
quoted  by  Lier  Phil.  LXIII.  55  ff.  A  single  example  is  manes  parcite  iam 
luetic  soUicilare  nieos,  Bilcheler  11 98.  Ordinarily  the  attitude  toward  the 
display  of  grief  is  that  indicated  by  the  references  just  given,  but  occasionally 
a  moderate  degree  of  feeUng  is  applauded,  e.  g.,  Cicero  Ad  Brutum  i.  9.  2: 
"ne  id  ipsum  carere  omni  sensum  doloris  sit  miserius  quam  dolere,  sed  ut 
modice  ceteris  utile  est,  ita  tibi  necesse  est;"  and  Odyssey  iv.  195  ff.  Of 
the  same  sort  is  the  familiar  passage  from  Solon  (frg.  21  B):  MT/Se'/xot 
aKXavcTTOS   6a.vaT0<i  fxoXoL,  dWa  </)t'Aotcnv  Tron^a-aifJLL  Oavuiv  aXyea  koI  o-rova^as. 

44.  Let  us  be  of  good  courage,  for  the  death  of  friends  is  not  the  first  misfor- 
tune for  any  of  us,  and  grief  is  unjust.  Natura  enim  usuram  nobis  vitae  dedit, 
tamquam  pecuniae,  nulla  praefinita  die. 

Cf.  Tusc.  i.  39.  93:  "At  ea  (sc.  natura)  quidem  dedit  usuram  vitae 
tamquam  pecuniae,  nulla  praestituta  die;"  CIL.  VI.  3580:  "debitum 
naturae  persolvit;"  Seneca  De  rem.  fort.  2.  i;  2.  4;  3.  2;  Cons,  ad  Polyb. 
10.5;  Cons,  ad  Liviarn  T^6(),T)']o;  Ambrosiuso/).  a7.  i.  3;  'Lysia.s Epitaphios 
24;   Cons,  ad  Apoll.  10. 

45.  Life  is  not  our  home,  but  a  place  where  we  tarry  for  a  brief  space.  46. 
The  time  of  death  is  uncertain,  and  death  itself  is  in  the  hands  of  the  gods.  Those 
who  are  taken  from  us  are  taken  for  but  a  short  time,  and  we  shall  soon  be  reunited- 
If  any  fear  that  death  will  be  painful,  it  should  be  remembered  that  it  usually 
is  attended  by  little  or  no  pain,  sometimes  even  by  pleasure.  Whatever  it  is,  it 
generally  lasts  but  a  moment,  and  when  it  lasts  longer  it  is  less  painful,  and  shows 
that  there  is  nothing  to  fear  in  death.  50.  Sed  turpe  stultumque  est  homini, 
tanta  tamque  varia  rerum  cognitione  instructo,  non  a  se  ipso  potius  mature,  quam 
sero  ab  usu  et  cogitatione  doloris  remedia  exspectare. 

Cf.  Tusc.  iii.  22.  54:  "sed  id  quod  ratio  debuerat,  usus  docet;"  Plin. 
Epistt.  xvi.  16.  10:  "proinde  si  quas  ad  eum  de  dolore  tam  iusto  litteras 
mittes,  memento  adhibere  solacium,  non  quasi  castigatorium  et  nimis 
forte,  sed  molle  et  humanum,  quod  ut  facilius  admittat  multum  faciet  medii 
temporis  spatium,  ut  enim  crudum  adhuc  vulnus  medentium  manus  re- 
formidat,  deinde  patitur  et  ultro  requirit,  sic  recens  animi  dolor  conso- 
lationes  reicit  ac  refugit,  mox  desiderat  et  clementer  admotis  adquiescit;" 
Epistt.  viii.  5.  3;  Ad  Jam.  v.  16.  5;  Ovid  Ex  ponto  iv.  n.  13  ff.;  Eur.  Ale. 
380,  381 ;   Cons,  ad  Apoll.  20. 


1 6  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

But  philosophy  fortifies  us  against  all  ills  and  guides  us  as  we  go  through 
life.  54.  That  her  father  is  still  alive  is  the  only  thing  that  can  trouble  Tullia. 
She  should  think  rather  that  he  will  follow  soon.  55.  Why  should  we  try  to  avoid 
troubles,  which  nourish  courage  in  us  ?  Why  shun  death,  which  warns  us  to  be 
better  ?     56.  We  should  consider  that  death  is  a  kindly  servant  of  the  gods. 

Amid  all  the  proclamations  that  death  is  a  blessing,  the  rebellious  outcry 
of  Sappho  strikes  us  with  a  refreshing  sense  of  independence:  rj  Sxrirep 
2a7r</>w,  oTi  TO  aTTo6vT^(TKeiv  KaKov  •  ol  Oeoi  Kcxpt/cacrii'  •  aTrWvrjcTKOV  yap  av  {dp. 
At.  Rhet.  ii.  23.  12). 

The  story  of  Amphiaraus  proves  that  a  speedy  death  is  the  gift  of  the  gods. 
62.  What  can  happen  to  a  man  to  make  him  desire  to  live  ?  Learning  ?  But 
learning  breeds  jealousy.  The  fine  arts  ?  The  same  is  true  of  them.  Politics  ? 
The  fate  of  Miltiades,  of  Ephialtes,  of  Cimon,  of  Themistocles,  of  Aristides,  of 
Metellus,  of  Scipio  Africanus,  of  Regulus,  of  Marius,  of  Brutus,  is  a  sufficient 
commentary  on  the  political  life.  67.  The  voluntary  deaths  of  Cleomenes  and 
Theagenes  show  the  correct  attitude  of  mind.  Even  a  woman  showed  this  same 
temper,  Hasdrubal's  wife:  repetamus  ex  historiis  Asdrubalis  uxorem  illam,  quae, 
Carthagine  in  hostium  potestatem  redacta,  se  ipsam  cum  tribus  filiis  in  confla- 
grantis  patriae  incendium  immisit. 

Cf.  Val.  Max.  iii.  2,  Ext.  6:  "dextra  laevaque  communes  filios  mortem 
non  recusantes  trahens,  incendio  se  flagrantis  patriae  obiecit." 

68.  Dicaearchus  asserts  that  more  people  are  killed  by  human  cruelty  than 
from  any  other  cause. 

For  possible  sources  from  which  this  statement  might  have  come,  and 
a  general  discussion  of  Dicaearchus'  consolatory  activity,  cf .  Buresch,  p.  35. 

69.  Imagine  all  blessings  conferred  upon  a  man:  all  are  perishable,  and 
dependent  upon  time  and  chance.  70.  Although  nature  has  made  man  weak 
and  frail,  plurimos  tamen  insevit  divinos  ingeni  iudicique  igniculos,  quonmi 
auxilio  et  cum  dolore  luctari,  et  timori  obsistere,  labores  vero  omnes  nullo  negotio 
vincere  ac  perferre  possemus.  71.  If  death  comes  to  the  old,  it  brings  with  it 
a  condition  better,  or  at  least  no  worse.  72.  Non  enim  is  ego  sum,  qui  animum 
simul  cum  homine  interire  putem,  tantumque  mentis  lumen,  e  divina  natura 
dehbatum,  posse  exstingui,  sed  potius  certo  tempore  emenso  ad  immortalitatem 
redire.  73.  A  man  should  be  ashamed  to  grieve  like  a  woman;  those  who  do 
so  are  rightly  reproached  with  the  words 

Vos  etenim  iuvenes  animum  geritis  muliebrem, 
illaque  virgo  viri. 

The  same  verses  are  found  in  De  off.  i.  18.  61.  The  attribution  of  exces- 
sive grief  to  women  is  frequent,  e.  g.,  the  passage  just  cited;  Ad  Jam.  v.  16. 
6;  Archilochus,  frg.  9  B. 


STRUCTURE   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  1 7 

74.  Gorgias  was  glad  to  die,  and  his  temper  is  the  one  that  a  free  man  should 
have.  75.  Do  we  grieve  because  our  dear  ones  are  dead?  We  should  rather 
imitate  those  noble  men  who  have  borne  with  fortitude  such  afflictions.  77.  Such 
a  man  was  Anaxagoras. 

Anaxagoras  was  a  favorite  example  of  the  consoler.  Cf.  e.  g.,  Tusc.  iii. 
24.  58;  Val.  Max.  v.  10,  Ext.  3,  and  for  the  sentiment  cf.  also  Tusc.  iii. 
13.  28;  Ambrosius  o/>.  cit.  i.  i;  Soph.  El.  1171,  1172. 

His  words  were  worthy  of  a  true  philosopher.  How  can  that  man  be  free 
who  is  a  slave  to  grief?  80.  Another  example  was  Xenophon,  who  performed 
the  duties  of  a  good  man  and  a  good  citizen.  82.  Still  another  was  Pericles,  who 
proved  himself  a  good  and  wise  man. 

Cf.  Hieron.  Epistt.  60.  5  (M.  I.  592):  "Proponunt  innumerabiles  viros, 
et  maxime  Periclem  et  Xenophontem  Socraticum  "  (the  sentence  is  appar- 
ently vi^ritten  vdth  the  preceding  list  of  consolers  in  mind);  Val.  Max.  v. 
10,  Ext.  I  (Pericles)  and  2  (Xenophon);  Cons,  ad  Apoll.  ^^. 

87.  There  is  no  misfortune  so  great  that  we  ought  to  grieve — not  death  nor 
poverty  nor  exile,  for  each  of  these  has,  through  the  grace  of  the  gods,  the  possi- 
bility of  a  greater  blessing.  Pleni  sunt  libri  philosophorum,  refertae  argumentis 
ac  rationibus  paginae  fere  omnes,  tanta  autem  exemplorum  copia,  ut  nihil  possit 
esse  cumulatius.  91.  Nam  in  tanta  vel  argumentorum  vel  exemplorum  copia, 
quibus  se  legentes  paene  obrui  sentient,  ecquis  se  immobilem  aut  in  dolore  inexo- 
rabilem  praebeat  ? 

At  this  point  the  editions  indicate  a  lacuna.  There  is  certainly  an  inter- 
ruption of  the  argument,  but  perhaps  sufficient  w^arning  was  given  by  the 
resumptive  sentence  just  quoted.  In  the  absence  of  MSS  further  specula- 
tion is  useless. 

92.  There  are  some  who  will  not  be  consoled  by  their  friends,  and  who  do  not 
wish  to  be  consoled.  Let  these  have  their  way,  but  when  time  has  solaced  them 
a  little,  they  will  take  pleasure  in  reading  over  the  precepts  of  this  Consolatio,  and 
will  be  helped  for  the  future  by  learning  them  by  heart.  For  the  casual  reading 
of  philosophy  is  not  enough  to  fortify  one  against  misfortune,  as  the  author  himself 
can  testify  from  his  own  experience.  95.  A  few  important  topics  remain.  Per- 
haps we  grieve  because  we  are  deprived  of  assistance  by  the  death  of  friends. 
Grief  of  this  sort  is  mercenary,  and  therefore  base. 

Cf.  Cons,  ad  Apoll.  19. 

96.  Let  us  turn  to  Romans  who  have  borne  the  deaths  of  sons  in  a  way  that 
may  compare  with  even  that  of  the  Greeks  mentioned  above.  97.  One  of  these 
was  Fabius  Maximus,  who  lost  an  only  son.  Neque  solum  non  doluit,  quod 
fortissimi  fuit,  sed  etiam  mortuo  laudationem  in  foro  dixit,  quo  nihil  fortius  aut 
laudabilius  ne  ex  omni  quidem  antiquitate  recenseri  potest.  Cuius  orationem 
quis  non  admiretur,  insignem  ingeni,  iudici,  ordinis  praestantia?     Quo  modo 


15  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN  CONSOLATIO 

ille  vel  ea  quae  dixit  sine  luctu  dicere,  aut  quae  scripsit  sine  dolore  cogitare  potuit  ? 
cum  praesertim  hoc  in  ilia  laudatione  admirari  et  obstupescere  soleamus,  quod 
non,  ut  alii,  de  ceterorum  fortitudine  disputat,  ut  suum  ipse  dolorem  aliorum 
exemplo  minuat,  sed  in  filio  haerens  illius  maxime  virtutes  propriasque  laudes 
quae  vel  acerbiorem  efficere  doloris  sensum  poterant,  longissimo  sermone 
persequitur. 

Schulz,  p.  37,  believes  that  this  laudatio  was  referred  to  in  the  Consolatio 
of  Cicero,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  dispute  his  conclusion.  Nowhere  else 
is  there  such  a  lengthy  account  of  this  famous  laudatio,  which  was  highly 
esteemed  in  antiquity.  References  to  it  are  not  infrequent,  e.g.,  Cato  Mai. 
4.  12;  Adfam.  iv.  6.  i;  Plut.  Vit.  Fab.  24. 

98.  Another  example  is  Horatius  Pulvillus  [of.  Val.  Max.  v.  10.  i].  99. 
Another  is  L.  Paulus  [of.  Val.  Max.  v.  10.  2].  Others  are  Sulpicius  Gallus, 
Q.  Marcius  Rex,  P.  Crassus,  and  Cn.  Caepio.  lam  quid  Pisones,  Scaevolas, 
Brutos,   Marcellos,  Metellos,  Lepidos,  Aufidios,  enumerem  ? 

Cf.  Hieron.  Epistt.  60.  5  (M.  I.  592):  "Pulvillus  .  .  .  .  L.  Paulus  .... 
Praetermitto  Maximos,  Catones,  Galos,  Pisones,  Brutos,  Scaevolas,  Metel- 
los, Scauros,  Marcios,  Crassos,  Marcellos  atque  Aufidios,  quorum  non 
minor  in  luctu  quam  in  bellis  virtus  fuit,  et  quorum  orbitates  in  Consola- 
tionis  libro  Tullius  explicavit." 

103.  The  author  then  passes  to  examples  of  women  who  have  exhibited  the 
same  virtue.  For  on  the  stage  of  life,  as  Theophrastus  calls  it,  all  must  play  a 
part,  and  those  who  are  cowardly  will  receive  the  censure  of  the  gods  as  surely 
as  a  gladiator  who  desires  to  live  at  any  cost  is  condemned  by  the  people.  106. 
Spartan  women  are  said  to  look  whether  their  sons'  wounds  are  in  front,  and  if 
so,  to  receive  the  bodies,  and  the  story  is  told  that  one  regarded  it  as  more  glorious 
to  die  in  battle  than  to  win  an  Olympic  victory.  Another,  hearing  that  her  son 
had  fallen  in  battle,  said,  Idcirco  genueram,  ut  mortem  pro  patria  fortiter  occum- 
bere  non  dubitaret. 

Cf.  Tusc.  i.  42. 102 :  "  Idcirco  genueram,  ut  esset,  qui  pro  patria  mortem 
non  dubitaret  occumbere." 

106.  Roman  matrons  have  been  as  noble,  Comeha,  Rutilia,  Clodia. 

Rutilia  and  Clodia  are  the  subjects  of  questions  to  Atticus  {Ad  Alt.  xii. 
20.  2;  xii.  22.  2),  probably  for  use  in  the  Consolatio,  though  some  have 
doubted  this.  Cornelia  appears  again  in  Seneca  Cons,  ad  Marc.  16.  i  flf., 
Rutilia  in  Seneca  Cons,  ad  Helv.  16.  7. 

III.  To  the  list  of  brave  men  may  be  added  Theramenes. 

See  Tusc.  i.  40.  96;  Cons,  ad  Apoll.  6;  cf.  Val.  Max.  iii.  2,  Ext.    . 

115.  All  hope  for  themselves  the  fortune  of  Priam  or  Metellus,  forgetting  that 
their  good  fortune  did  not  attend  them  to  the  end.  No  one  can  expect  anything 
better. 


STRUCTURE   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  I9 

The  passage  has  a  very  marked  resemblance  to  Tusc.  i.  35.  85,  as  will 
be  pointed  out  in  detail  below  (p.  29). 

118.  L.  Crassus  was  saved  from  misfortune  by  an  opportune  death. 

The  passage  will  be  compared  later  (p.  30)  with  the  famous  passage 
in  De  oratore  iii.  2.  8,  which  may  be  compared  with  Seneca  Cons,  ad  Marc. 
20.  5;  Tac.  Agr.  45  i ;  Ambrosius  op.  cit.  i.  30;  and  vdth  an  entirely  inde- 
pendent passage  from  the  Bible,  Raptus  est,  ne  malitia  mutaret  cor  eius. 
That  these  are  not  safely  to  be  regarded  as  imitations  of  the  earliest  example 
given,  that  from  Cicero,  was  pointed  out  by  Morowski  De  rhetoribus  lat., 
p.  15  (cited  by  Hendrickson  The  Proconsulate  of  Julius  Agricola,  p.  33), 
who  showed  that  the  figure  is  conventional  in  first-century  rhetoric. 

120.  Tenemus  enim  memoria,  aut  saltem  ex  patrum  scriptis  accepimus, 
crudelissimam  omnium  caedem  illo  tempore  esse  factam,  trucidatos  bones  viros 
et  cives,  incisas  eorum  cervices  in  rostrisque  positas,  qui  multorum  civium  salutem 
ac  dignitatem  eloquentia  peperissent.  123.  The  one-time  prosperity  and  final 
fall  of  Pompey  are  next  discussed. 

This,  like  the  preceding,  is  reserved  for  fuller  commentary  (p.  40). 

Noble  Romans,  at  the  price  of  a  moment's  pain,  won  for  themselves  eternal 
fame,  dying  for  their  fatherland.  127.  He  then  reverts  to  the  nature  of  death. 
What  death  is,  can  be  inferred  from  sleep  and  from  the  condition  before  birth. 
132.  Mortem  igitur,  siquidem  somno  similis  est,  singulis  noctibus  induimur, 
et,  cum  in  somno  sensus  sit  plane  nullus,  nullum  etiam  in  morte  futurum  esse 

sensum,  verissime  statuere  debemus Mors  enim  quemadmodum  ad  eum, 

qui  nondum  ortus  est,  nihil  pertinuit,  sic  ne  ad  eum  quidem,  qui  mortuus  est, 
ulla  ratione  pertinebit.     Ad  morientem  vero  vel  nihil,  vel  parum  certe  pertinet. 

The  relation  of  death  to  sleep  in  literature  has  been  commented  on  above 
(p.  14);  for  the  second  of  these  ideas  cf.  Tusc.  i.  38.  91 :  "Natura  vero  si 
se  sic  habet,  ut  quo  modo  initium  nobis  rerum  omnium  ortus  noster  adferat, 
sic  exitum  mors,  ut  nihil  pertinuit  ad  nos  ante  ortum,  sic  nihil  post  mortem 
pertinebit."    Cf.  Cons,  ad  Apoll.  15;  Anaxagoras  ap.  Stob.  Flor.  120. 19  G. 

133.  But  some  say  that  the  dying  are  tortured  by  pain.  That  is  true  in  some 
cases,  but  usually  only  of  those  whose  lives  have  not  been  above  reproach,  so  that 
it  is  more  likely  the  work  of  conscience.  Then  too,  those  who  have  never  thought 
of  death  are  disturbed  when  it  does  come.  But  good  men  die  gladly,  and  with 
little  or  no  pain.  137.  Such  were  Q.  Fabius,  A.  Pompeius,  and  Thalna.  139. 
Some  say  that  the  same  day  of  death  is  established  for  all;  that  is  not  true.  It  is 
true,  however,  that  bounds  of  life  are  fixed  for  us  by  the  gods,  which  we  may  not 
pass.  In  the  former  case,  why  should  man  practice  virtue  ?  If  the  end  is  fixed, 
it  cannot  be  moved  by  virtue;  if  it  lies  within  the  power  of  each  to  decide,  it  is 
not  fixed.  Sed  de  his  statuat  unus  quisque  ut  libet.  Quid  autem  verius  sit,  deus 
ipse  viderit;  hominem  quidem  scire  arbitror  neminem.     141.  We  often  wish  for 


20  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

death  as  a  means  of  escape  from  trouble.  142.  It  is  especially  in  the  case  of  the 
virtuous  that  there  is  great  good  in  death.  144.  They  return  to  the  place  whence 
they  came,  and  then  truly  live.  145.  Recte  igitur  dictum  est,  corpus  terram  esse, 
mentem  autem  ignem  de  caelo  sumptum.  This  is  proved  by  the  virtuous  lives 
of  good  men. 

Cf.  Tusc.  i.  25.  60:  "Animae  sit  animus  ignisne,  nescio,  nee  me  pudet, 
ut  istos,  fateri  nescire  quod  nesciam;"  and  Somn.  Scip.  3.  7:  "iis  {sc.  homi- 
nibus)  animus  datus  est  ex  illis  sempiternis  ignibus." 

The  body  is  earth,  and  returns  to  earth,  but  the  soul  is  from  heaven,  and 
returns  to  heaven. 

Cf.  Aesch.  Choeph.  127,  128. 

146.  The  same  ends  of  life  and  rewards  of  death  are  not  to  be  assigned  to 
the  good  and  bad.  This  thought  is  especially  pleasant  because  Tullia  was  good 
and  brave.     148.  She  is  undoubtedly  in  a  happier  state  now  than  she  was  in  life. 

Here  begins  almost  the  only  characterization  of  Tullia  we  are  given. 
Its  method  is  direct  and  informal. 

She  had  no  evil  thoughts,  endured  patiently,  "and  thanked  heaven  for  all. 
Justice,  and  not  herself,  was  her  care,  and  honor  to  the  gods.  Her  natural  impulses 
were  toward  the  right.  Her  skill  in  housewifery  is  praised,  and  her  learning, 
almost  equal  to  a  man's.  Bravely,  she  sought  help  from  herself,  even  for  mental 
worries.  She  was  distressed  at  her  father's  exile,  but  always  hoped  for  his  recall. 
Ita,  quantum  ex  calamitate  doloris,  tantundem  ex  filiae  suavitate  ac  pietate  solati 
capiebamus.  152.  What  is  pleasanter  than  to  think  that  she  is  immortal? 
Animos  enim  e.sse  immortales,  ne  dubitandum  mihi  quidem  videtur. 

He  then  proceeds  to  review  the  arguments  for  immortality. 

The  quaedam  vis  veneratione  digna  in  the  bodies  of  the  dead  does  not  impress 
the  author  as  a  strong  argument.  If  authority  is  asked,  what  better  can  be  pro- 
cured than  that  of  the  man  whom  Apollo  pronounced  wisest?  The  arguments 
which  the  Italici  devised  are  hard  to  refute.  The  speed  of  the  soul,  traversing 
in  a  moment  the  labors  of  years,  indicates  its  divine  origin.  So  do  the  power 
of  memory,  and  the  gift  of  predicting  the  future.  Another  reason  is  the  fact  that 
it  possesses  principium  et  perpetuitas  motus.  The  soul  is  the  image  of  god,  and 
comes  from  heaven:  why  then,  should  it  not  be  immortal?  No  origin  for  the 
soul  can  be  found  in  the  earth,  for  it  is  unlike  any  of  earth's  elements.  God  can 
be  apprehended  by  the  mind  alone,  and  our  progress  can  be  explained  only  by 
supposing  divine  inspiration.  The  thirst  for  wealth  and  power  differentiates  man 
from  the  other  living  creatures.  If  wise  men  thought  that  the  soul  died  with  the 
body,  how  could  they  die  so  gladly,  while  fools  die  so  unwiUingly  ?  The  worship 
of  the  dead  has  cause  only  in  the  belief  that  the  soul  lives  on.  The  strongest 
proof  is  that  man  alone  has  knowledge  of  the  divine  and  can  appreciate  it,  the 
power  which  rules  all  things. 


STRUCTURE  OF  OUR  CONSOLATIO  21 

This,  in  brief,  is  the  argument  of  our  Consolatio  regarding  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul.  It  would  be  interesting,  if  space  permitted,  to  compare 
it  in  detail  with  such  a  line  of  reasoning  as  that,  for  example,  of  Ambrosius 
in  the  second  book  of  the  De  excessu  fratris.  There  would  of  course  be 
striking  differences.  Let  us  examine  in  a  more  detailed  way  some  of  the 
arguments.  Celeritas  animi  was  one  of  the  favorite  arguments.  Cicero 
uses  it  in  Tusc.  i.  19.  43  ff.,  and  in  De  div.  ii.  67.  139.  The  quaedam  vis 
is  expounded  at  greater  length  in  Tusc.  i.  12.  27.  For  memory  as  a  proof 
of  immortality,  cf.  Tusc.  i.  24.  57;  for  principium  et  perpetuitas  motus, 
cf.  Tusc.  i.  23.  53  ff.,  for  the  former  only,  De  div.  loc.  cit.,  for  the  latter  only, 
Somn.  Scip.  8.  19.  Other  proofs  of  immortality  are  elsewhere  used  by 
Cicero,  to  whom  I  have  confined  the  references  intentionally.  Cicero's  belief 
or  doubt  regarding  the  question  has  been  freely  discussed,  but  without 
entire  unanimity  of  opinion.  For  literary  purposes  his  belief  is  clear,  his 
confidence  admirable.  Such  is  his  feeling  in  the  Tusculan  Disputations, 
the  De  repiibUca,  and  the  Cato  Maior.  Very  different  is  the  usual  temper 
in  the  letters.  See,  e.  g.,  Ad  Jam.  vi.  4.  4:  "deinde  quod  mihi  ad  consola- 
tionem  commune  tecum  est,  si  iam  vocer  ad  exitum  vitae,  non  ab  ea  repub- 
lica  avellar,  qua  carendum  esse  doleam,  praesertim  cum  id  sine  uUo  sensu 
futurum  sit;"  Ad  Jam.  vi.  21.  i:  "una  ratio  videtur,  quicquid  evenerit, 
ferre  moderate,  praesertim  cum  omnium  rerum  mors  sit  extremum;"  Ad 
Att.  xii.  18.  i:  "longumque  illud  tempus,  cum  non  ero,  magis  me  movet 
quam  hoc  exiguum,  quod  mihi  tamen  nimis  longum  videtur."  Ad  Att. 
X.  8.  8  seems  rather  to  refer  to  fame  than  to  immortality:  "tempus  est  nos 
de  ilia  perpetua  iam,  non  de  hac  exigua  vita,  cogitare."  Friedlander 
{Sittengesch.  IIP.  746)  takes  Cicero  as  a  type  of  the  learned  eclectic,  but 
apparently  regards  the  Tusculans  as  representative  of  his  real  views,  as  in 
fact  they  may  have  been  at  the  particular  time.  Boissier  {La  religion 
romaine'*  59)  says:  "Ces  nobles  esperances  d'immortalite  dont  il  a  rempli 
ses  ouvrages  ne  lui  reviennent  jamais  a  la  pensee  dans  ses  malheurs  ou  dans 
ses  perils."  Cf.  Rohde's  words  (Psyche  616.  2):  "Die  Vorliebe  fiir  solche 
Unsterblichkeitshoffnungen  blieb  bei  Cicero  (und  wohl  durchweg  bei  den 
Gebildeten  seiner  Zeit  und  seiner  Gesellschaft)  nur  eine  kiinstlerische.  Wo 
er  nicht  rhetorisirt  oder  als  Schriftsteller  sich  in  Pose  setzt,  in  seinen  Briefen 
namentlich,  zeigt  er  keine  Spur  von  Ueberzeugungen  der  sonst  mit  Pathos 
vertretenen  Richtung."  A  volume  would  be  required  even  to  sum  up  all 
that  has  been  written  on  the  general  subject,  and  it  is  not  our  purpose  to 
add  to  the  literature.  Some  acquaintance  with  Cicero's  attitude,  at  least, 
toward  the  question  is  necessary  to  enable  us  to  form  an  opinion,  when  the 
proper  time  comes,  as  to  the  genuineness  of  our  Consolatio.     The  passage, 


22  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

"animorum  nulla  in  terra  origo  ....  motu  sempiterno,"  is  quoted  in 
Tusc.  i.  27.  66  from  the  Consolatio.  The  words,  "animorum  nulla  .... 
nisi  a  deo,"  are  found  also  in  Lact.  De  ira  10.  45;  the  words  "nee  vero 
....  movens"  in  Lact.  Inst.  i.  5.  25. 

165.  Nature  is  not  always  productive,  so  why  should  we  expect  success  always  ? 
The  end  is  death,  which  is  common  to  all  men,  frees  us  from  error,  and  leads  us 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  which  all  men  desire. 

Cf.  Tusc.  i.  19.  44:  "propterea  quod  et  natura  inest  in  mentibus  nos- 
tris  insatiabilis  quaedam  cupiditas  veri  videndi." 

168.  If  grief  is  to  be  censured,  so  is  he  who  grieves,  but  as  Grantor  says,  a 
moderate  degree  of  grief  is  proper. 

Cf.  Tusc.  i.  6.  12,  where  his  censure  of  indolentia  is  quoted. 

Both  extremes  are  to  be  avoided.  Pity  and  sympathy  are  natural  to  men, 
for  we  are  all  much  alike.  175.  When  we  realize  that  we  must  endure  whatever 
comes  to  us,  we  shall  be  nearer  the  truth,  and  be  better  men.  Grief  is  not  a  thing 
from  which  both  good  and  evil  may  be  derived,  but  only  evil.  We  must,  then, 
bravely  resist  it.  178.  How  will  our  mourning  help  the  dead?  All  they  ask  of 
us  is  honor  and  recollection,  as  the  epitaph  of  Ennius  declares.  183.  The  neglect 
of  virtue  and  piety  brings  trouble  upon  us.  184.  The  good,  on  the  other  hand, 
are  frequently  exalted  into  heaven,  not  in  body,  but  in  spirit.  185.  Quod  de 
Romulo,  urbis  nostrae  conditore,  memoriae  proditum  accepimus;  quem  singulare 
in  genus  hominum  coUatum  munus  tam  praeclarae  urbis  condendae  in  deorum 
numero  coUocavit,  idque  eo  tempore  quo,  litteris  et  doctrinis  homines  exculti  facile 
fictum  a  germano,  verum  a  falso  secernebant,  ut  credi  non  possit,  quicquam  ilhs 
persuaded  potuisse,  quod  ullam  ficti  aut  falsi  imaginem  prae  se  ferret.  Hercules, 
Liber,  Gastor  and  Pollux,  and  many  women  have  been  similarly  deemed  worthy 
of  divine  honors. 

Cf.  Tusc.  i.  12.  28,  where  a  list  is  given  including  Romulus,  Hercules, 
Liber,  the  Tyndaridae,  and  Ino  (=many  women?). 

That  they  have  been  received  into  heaven  is  proved  by  the  universal  agree- 
ment of  wise  men,  and  by  the  fact  that  there  is  no  other  place  worthy  of  them. 
They  revealed  god-like  traits  of  character,  and  so  should  be  near  the  gods.  Quis 
enim  Hercule  fortior?  quis  prudentior?  quis  ab  omni  cupiditate  remotior? 
Others  were  equally  deserving.  Their  rewards  are  not  statues  or  crowns,  but 
the  more  enduring  rewards  of  those  who  chose  a  life  of  virtue.  It  is  right  that  they 
be  separated  from  this  wicked  world.  191.  Our  wisest  men  have  seen  that  the 
good  and  bad  should  be  dealt  with  differently  after  death.  Let  us  choose  rather 
to  be  with  the  good. 

Sec.  192  is  quoted  from  the  Consolatio  by  Lactantius  Inst.  iii.  19.  3.  For 
a  similar  sentiment,  cf.  the  opinion  of  Socrates,  reported  in  Tusc.  i.  30.  72: 


STRUCTURE   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  23 

"Ita  enim  censebat,  itaque  disseruit,  duas  esse  vias,  duplicesque  cursus 
animorum  e  corpore  excedentium,"  etc. 

194.  Those  who  are  striving  for  glory  count  as  light  all  the  labor  it  costs.  This 
is  especially  true  in  public  life.  The  Spartans  and  Athenians,  honoring  as  gods 
their  fellow-citizens  who  have  fallen  fighting  for  their  country,  have  shown  true 
wisdom.  No  better  reward  can  be  desired  than  to  be  exalted  to  heaven,  there  to 
associate  with  the  great  and  good  men  who  have  gone  before.  Let  us  not  forget 
the  dignity  that  comes  from  temples  and  public  worship.  203.  The  cause  of  the 
deification  of  mortals  has  been  virtue,  which  looks  toward  the  public  welfare. 
Men  will  imitate  what  has  before  gained  the  ends  they  desire.  When  we  have 
virtues,  why  worship  beasts  or  fish,  as  the  Egyptians  and  the  Syrians  do  ?  The 
Egyptians  at  least,  with  all  their  wisdom,  should  see  the  folly  of  such  a  course, 
yet  they  worship  the  foulest  creatures.  209.  Certain  natural  phenomena  were 
deified  by  the  early  Romans,  and  being  established  by  reason  and  custom,  cannot 
safely  be  disturbed.  210.  The  Greeks  in  this  respect  are  not  so  worthy  of  praise 
as  usual,  with  their  deifications  of  Cupidines  and  Amores.  Deification  should  be 
reserv^ed  to  be  the  reward  of  virtue  and  of  service  to  humanity.  212.  [quoted  from 
the  Consolatio  by  Lactantius  Imt.  i.  15.  16  ff.].  Let  us  recognize  the  wisdom 
of  those  who  have  deified  the  virtuous,  but  not  restrict  the  honor  to  those  who  are 
now  in  possession  of  it.  213.  This  plea  is  made,  not  on  behalf  of  TuUia  alone, 
but  of  all  who  show  themselves  worthy.  TuUia  will  live  on  as  long  as  those 
monumenta  which  are  a  tribute  of  praise  to  her.  When  she  shall  have  supremum 
honorem,  and  then  alone,  will  her  father  have  done  this  full  duty  to  her.  When 
the  place  which  he  has  chosen  shall  have  the  nature  of  a  temple,  this  will  be  accom- 
plished. 216.  [quoted  with  sec.  212  by  Lactantius  loc.  cit.].  TuUia  is  as  worthy 
of  deification  as  any  of  those  who  have  received  the  honor.  Tu  ergo  in  eo  ipso 
fano,  quod  ad  nominis  tui  memoriam  ac  cultum  votum  dedicatumque  est,  et 
laudari  te  et  coli  senties.  You  know,  Tullia,  how  bravely  I  have  always  resisted 
fortune,  and  how  bravely  I  fought  my  enemies.  But  when  the  last  blow  fell, 
in  your  death,  I  have  nothing  to  say  but  "Cedo,  et  manus  toUo."  218.  Strength- 
ened by  consolation,  and  by  the  certainty  that  you  are  in  heaven,  I  seem  almost 
to  triumph  over  my  grief.  Do  not  forget  me,  but  lead  me  where  you  are,  and 
our  meeting  will  be  the  pleasanter  that  our  separation  has  been  bitter. 

The  deification  of  Tullia,  and  the  erection  of  a  shrine  in  her  honor 
was  one  of  the  projects  nearest  to  Cicero's  heart  in  the  months  following  her 
death.  The  twelfth  book  of  the  letters  to  Atticus  is  full  of  it.  The  location 
and  method  of  choosing  the  site  are  considered  in  frequent  letters.  One 
of  the  early  letters  is  Ad  Alt.  xii.  18:  "Ego,  quantum  his  temporibus  tam 
eruditis  fieri  potuerit,  profecto  illam  consecrabo  omni  genere  monumen- 
torum  ab  omnium  ingeniis  sumptorum  et  Graecorum  et  Latinorum;  quae 
res  forsitan  sit  refricatura  vulnus  meum.  Sed  iam  quasi  voto  quodam  et 
promisso  me  teneri  puto,"  etc.     Attacks  on  fortune  seem  to  have  been  a 


24  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

regular  feature  of  the  consolation:  cf.  Lact.  Inst.  iii.  28.  8,  9:  "lam  qui- 
cumque  aliquos  consolati  sunt  ob  interitum  amissionemque  carorum, 
fortunae  nomen  acerrimis  accusationibus  prosciderunt."  This  is  confirmed 
by  such  passages  as  Seneca  Cons,  ad  Polyh.  16.  4:  "Haec  ergo  puta  tibi 
parentem  publicum  referre  exempla,  eundem  ostendere,  quam  nihil  sacrum 
intactumque  sit  Fortunae;"  and  Stat.  Silv.  ii.  6.  8:  "quia  rerum  nomina 
caeca  Sic  miscet  Fortuna  manu."  Cf.  also  Fichon  Lactance,  p.  257.  In 
the  same  passage  Lactantius  refers  to  the  Consolatio  of  Cicero  in  this  way: 
"M.  Tullius  in  sua  Consolatione  pugnasse  se  semper  contra  fortunam  loqui- 
tur, eamque  a  se  semper  esse  superatam,  cum  fortiter  inimicorum  impetus 
rettudisset;  ne  tum  quidem  se  ab  ea  fractum,  cum  domo  pulsus  patria 
caruerit;  tum  autem,  cum  amiserit  carissimam  filiam,  victum  se  esse  a 
fortuna  turpiter  confitetur.  Cedo,  inquit,  et  manum  tollo."  Petrarch 
(Lettere  senile  viii.  i)  quotes  this  last  phrase  also.  As  Petrarch  was 
acquainted  with  Lactantius,  this  phrase  might  have  come  from  there,  and 
not  from  the  Consolatio  directly.  It  can  be  shown  that  Petrarch  did  not 
know  the  Consolatio  of  Cicero,  and  therefore  did  not  borrow  the  words 
directly  from  Cicero.  It  has  been  believed  by  some  that  one  of  the  topics 
which  Cicero  must  have  used  in  his  Consolatio  was  the  condition  of  the 
state,  that  he  who  died  in  such  times  as  these  left  behind  a  situation  that 
was  almost  intolerable.  Such  an  argument  is  used  in  some  of  the  consola- 
tory letters  of  Cicero,  e.  g.,  Ad  Jam.  v.  13,  16,  17,  18;  and  by  Sulpicius  in 
his  letter  to  Cicero  {Ad  Jam.  iv.  5.  3).  The  situation  in  the  Consolatio, 
however,  was  somewhat  different.  Cicero  would  hardly  have  allowed 
himself  the  same  freedom  of  speech  in  a  more  or  less  formal  literary  produc- 
tion Uke  his  Consolatio  as  in  a  letter,  even  of  the  semi-pubUc  character  of  a 
consolation.  It  seems  unsafe,  then,  to  assume  that  Cicero  did  make  use 
of  such  an  argument,  and  to  condemn  this  Consolatio  simply  because  it  is 
here  omitted. 

The  parallels  quoted  have  been  mainly  from  Cicero,  for  various  reasons: 
if  this  is  the  genuine  Consolatio,  we  should  like  to  know  its  relation  to  other 
works;  if  it  is  not,  it  is  desirable  to  know  how  small  or  how  large  a  range 
of  literature  the  imitator  would  have  to  command,  i.  e.,  to  know  from  what 
sources  he  could  have  derived  most  of  his  material.  Then,  too,  the  nature 
of  the  subject  makes  it  ine\atable  that  a  large  part  of  the  illustrative  quota- 
tions should  come  from  Cicero.  The  relation  to  other  works  of  Cicero 
and  of  other  authors  will  need  to  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  come  to  con- 
sider the  question  of  the  authenticity  of  our  Consolatio. 


CHAPTER  IV        -^ 
THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  OUR  CONSOLATIO 

We  have  examined  the  method  of  construction  of  our  Consolatio,  with- 
out being  primarily  interested  in  the  origin  of  the  document.  The  prin- 
cipal question  for  us  is  now  to  be  considered,  whether  or  no  the  work  is 
genuine.  Any  student  of  authenticity  may  have  a  twofold  problem  before 
him,  the  parts  of  which  may  or  may  not  be  of  equal  difficulty  and  interest. 
His  first  desire  is  to  ascertain  whether  or  no  the  work  is  genuine,  and  if  it 
prove  to  be  so,  his  work  is  done.  If,  however,  it  prove  to  be  a  forgery, 
the  second  task  remains,  of  attempting  to  attribute  it  to  a  period,  or  perhaps 
even  to  an  individual.  It  may  in  addition  be  desirable  to  find  motives  for 
the  forgery.  Our  first  concern  is  then  to  decide  for  ourselves  the  question 
of  the  genuineness  of  our  Consolatio.  The  decision  may  rest  on  different 
sorts  of  evidence,  of  perhaps  varying  value.  No  certain  criteria  can  be 
established  in  advance  which  will  be  of  universal  appHcation,  except  within 
very  wide  limits.  There  is,  then,  opportunity  for  the  use  of  any  test  that 
will  promise  to  aid  in  the  solution:  relation  to  other  documents,  of  Cicero 
and  others,  language,  style,  use  of  clausulae,  etc.  The  relation  to  other 
documents  would  in  this  case  involve  the  whole  question  of  imitation,  of 
the  use  of  quotations,  of  the  use  of  the  consolatory  commonplaces,  of  the 
applicability  to  this  Consolatio,  of  references  to  it  in  literature,  and  of  the 
use  in  our  Consolatio  of  the  known  fragments.  The  evidence  of  language 
and  style  may  be  based  on  syntax,  vocabulary,  phraseology,  etc.,  though 
this  form  of  evidence  may  not  be  of  much  value.  The  clausulae  may  be 
compared  with  those  of  other  works  of  Cicero,  and  this  test  may  have  a 
certain  degree  of  value.  If  the  document  prove  to  be  spurious,  this  same 
test  may  perhaps  be  appUed  to  the  theories  of  authorship  that  have  been 
proposed.  Finally,  other  sorts  of  evidence  in  great  variety  may  be  found, 
the  presence  or  absence  of  possible  Christian  points  of  view,  the  author's 
method  of  citation,  etc.  In  a  word,  anything  which  may  have  a  bearing  on 
the  question  is  worth  examining. 

Let  us  first  review  the  fragments  of  Cicero's  Consolatio  as  they  are  pre- 
sented by  the  editors.  From  Sigonius  down  to  the  most  recent  editors, 
the  collection  of  fragments  has  suffered  few  changes  of  any  consequence. 
An  occasional  change  of  reading  has  been  introduced,  but  otherwise  the 
Hst  remains  much  the  same  as  it  was  when  it  was  first  put  together  by  Sigo- 
nius.    The  order  of  the  fragments  has  not  remained  the  same.     In  our  Con- 

25 


26  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

solatia  they  are  found  in  the  same  order  in  which  Sigonius  in  his  edition  of 
Cicero  arranged  them,  a  fact  which  aroused  the  curiosity  and  suspicion  of 
Riccoboni.  The  answer  was  the  obvious  one :  All  that  such  a  state  of  affairs 
proves  is  that  the  order  which  Sigonius  adopted  is  the  correct  one — an 
answer  of  unimpeachable  logic,  if  the  premises  be  accepted.  Between 
the  time  of  Sigonius'  edition  and  the  publication  of  this  Consolatio,  another 
edition  of  the  fragments  had  appeared,  by  Patricius.  This  collection 
introduces  some  slight  changes,  of  possible  importance  to  us.  The  choice 
of  fragments  involves  a  considerable  degree  of  difficulty  and  uncertainty; 
not  all  editors  would  classify  all  fragments  in  the  same  way.  Muller  in  the 
Teubner  edition,  for  example,  includes  among  the  fragments  the  following, 
from  Lact.  Ad  Stat.  Theb.  i.  306 :  ' '  Hoc  iter  vitae  tam  confragosum  putamus, 
tam  plenum  iniuriarum  ac  miseriarum  atque  laborum."  Certainly  its 
sentiment  might  well  give  it  a  place  in  the  Consolatio,  yet  Jahnke,  ad  loc, 
regards  it  as  "incertae  sedis."  Muller  includes  among  the  "Fragmenta 
Librorum  Incertorum"  the  following:  "Quoniam  utraque  earum  senten- 
tiarum  [concerning  immortality  and  death]  doctissimos  habuit  auctores 
nee,  quid  certi  sit,  divinari  potest"  (Lact.  Inst.  vii.  8.  9),  which  Schulz, 
p.  42,  n.  2,  regards  with  some  probability  as  a  fragment  of  the  Consolatio. 
Neither  of  these  possible  fragments  is  to  be  found  in  our  Consolatio. 
Despite  the  practical  agreement  of  the  editors,  the  only  fragments  we  are 
sure  of  are  those  quoted  by  Cicero  himself,  for  those  given  by  Lactantius 
may  be  derived  from  this  Consolatio.  All  the  generally  accepted  fragments 
do  appear  here,  and  in  a  perfectly  natural  manner  in  most  cases.  What 
we  should  most  like  to  know  is  not,  what  fragments  are  received  by  modern 
editors,  but  what  were  so  received  by  Sigonius  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  Barzizza  in  the  fifteenth.  Of  the  former,  we  can  be  sure;  of  the  latter, 
we  are  unfortunately  in  complete  ignorance.  Let  us  consider  the  fragments 
in  the  order  in  which  they  appear  in  our  Consolatio. 

7.  "Crantorem  sequor."  The  fragment  was  sufficiently  commented 
on  above,  p.  2. 

7.  "Sed  humanae  naturae  incommoda  ita  diligenter  et  accurate  expres- 
sit,  ut  quasi  luendorum  scelerum  causa  nasci  homines  et  in  hanc  lucem 
ingredi,  possis  agnoscere."  Cf.  Lact.  Inst.  iii.  18.  18,  quoted  above,  p.  12. 
I  have  already  indicated  that  one  theory  of  the  date  of  our  Consolatio  is 
that  though  spurious  it  is  ancient,  and  perhaps  precedes  the  time  of  Lactan- 
tius. EUis  CI.  Rev.  VIL  197  thinks  that  this  is  so,  that  this  Consolatio  was 
substituted  for  the  original,  and  was  used  as  the  genuine  by  Lactantius. 
The  agreement  here  and  elsewhere  may  be  equally  well  explained  on  the 
theory  of  genuineness,  or  on  that  of  a  later  imitation.^,. In  the  latter  case. 


AUTHENTICITY   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  27 

the  explanation  would  be  that  the  forger  knew  the  passage  in  Lactantius 
and  arranged  his  work  to  fit. 

36.  "Ex  quo  intelUgi  licet  ....  proxime  accedere."  The  words  are 
quoted  in  Lactantius  Inst.  iii.  19.  13,  from  the  Consolatio.  Sigonius, 
following  some  of  the  Lactantius  MSS,  read  at  the  end  "effugere  violentiam 
fortunae;"  Patricius,  with  whom  our  Consolatio  agrees,  omits  "violentiam." 
It  may  be  noted  that  the  language  of  Lactantius  is  not  quite  appropriate 
to  our  Consolatio.  He  attributes  the  words  to  Silenus  directly,  whereas  in 
our  Consolatio  they  are  put  into  the  general  statement  which  introduces 
the  story,  and  later  only  a  paraphrase  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  Silenus: 
"Docuit  autem  regera,  numquam  nasci  optimum  esse,  sed  celeritatem 
mortis  proxime  accedere."  That  Lactantius  has  the  usual  form  of  the 
story  in  mind  is  vouched  for  by  the  manner  of  its  occurrence  in  Tusc.  i.  48. 
114,  and  in  Cons,  ad  A  poll.  27.  In  the  Tusculans  the  words,  "et  .... 
fortunae,"  are  omitted:  the  Tusculans  cannot  then  be  regarded  as  Lactan- 
tius' immediate  source.  It  would  be  of  interest  to  know  whether  the  follow- 
ing words  of  Lactantius  will  apply  to  our  Consolatio:  "Credidisse  ilium 
vanissinfio  dicto  exinde  apparet,  quod  adiecit  aliquid  de  suo,  ut  ornaret." 
One  more  question  remains  to  be  asked:  our  Consolatio  apologizes  for 
this  story  with  the  words,  "si  gravioribus  ludicra  interdum  admiscere 
liceat."  What  is  the  relation  of  these  words  to  the  use  of  "ineptias"  in  Tusc. 
i.  40.  95:  "contemnamus  igitur  omnes  ineptias  (quod  enim  levius  huic 
levitati  nomen  imponam?),"  a  passage  which  refers  to  Aristotle's  story  of 
creatures  in  the  region  of  the  Pontus  that  live  but  a  day  ?  Note  also  the 
use  of  fxaraLovi  in  a  similar  connection  in  Cons,  ad  A  poll.  18. 

55.  "Sed  qui  nos  teneat  error,  aut  miserabilis  ignoratio  veri."  Cf. 
Lact.  Inst.  iii.  14.  20. 

156.  "Animorum  nulla  ....  motu  sempitemo."  The  sources  used 
by  the  editors  were  enumerated  above,  p.  22.  Some  small  differences 
exist,  but  their  importance  is  minimized  by  the  fact  that  there  are  no  known 
MSS. 

192.  "Nee  enim  omnibus  ....  pervolare."  Cf.  Lact.  Inst.  iii.  19. 
3.  Our  Consolatio  again  agrees  with  Patricius  against  Sigonius  in  reading 
"castos  autem  animos,"  Sigonius  omitting  the  last  word.  The  Lactantius 
MSS  seem  to  be  divided.  Lambinus  reads  "castos  autem  (aP  castos  animos 
et  puros)  puros"  etc.  Sigonius  alone  reads  "inde  cursum,"  where  others 
have  "eundem  cursum." 

212  and  216.  "Cumvero  ....  constitutamque  habemus."  Cf.  Lact. 
Inst.  i.  15,  16  ff.,  where  the  division  in  our  Consolatio  does  not  exist,  or 
has  not  been  preserved  by  the  MSS.     Again  our  Consolatio  goes  against 


28  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

Sigonius  and  with  Patricius,  in  reading  "assentiamur"  where  Sigonius 
has  "assentiam."  Just  above  our  Consolatio  has  "eorum  in  urbibus;" 
Sigonius,  "in  eorum  urbibus;"  Patricius,  "eorum  in  urbibus,  al'  in  eorum 
^urbibus,"  indicating  that  the  differences  here,  and  so  probably  also  else- 
where, are  due  to  the  fact  that  he  and  Sigonius  used  different  MSS  of  Lac- 
tantius. 

217.  "Cedo,  et  manum  toUo."  Cf.  Lact.  Inst.  iii.  28.  9.  Sigonius 
and  Patricius  read  "en  manum;"  Petrarch  (if  we  may  trust  the  quotation 
in  Biinemann's  Laclantius,  ad  loc,  the  Letter e  senile  being  accessible  only 
in  the  Italian  translation  edited  by  Fracasetti)  read  "et  manus." 

We  are  now  ready  to  consider  resemblances  of  form.  I  stated  above 
(p.  6)  my  behef  that  resemblance  in  form  does  not  necessarily  imply  a 
relationship,  still  less  the  direction  of  the  indebtedness,  in  case  one  is  shown 
in  other  ways  to  exist.  It  is  hardly  worth  our  while  to  examine  in  detail 
all  the  passages  which  exhibit  a  resemblance  in  form  of  expression  to  admit- 
tedly genuine  works  of  Cicero.  It  would  take  too  long  to  look  at  each  of 
these  passages  separately  and  in  the  light  of  all  the  rest,  but  perhaps  the 
inspection  of  certain  striking  passages  will  prove  of  assistance  in  determining 
whether  or  no  our  Consolatio  is  genuine.  Practically  all  the  most  interesting 
of  these  were  pointed  out  long  ago  by  Riccoboni,  though  some  rather  impor- 
tant aspects  were  overlooked  by  him.  The  interpretation  of  such  connec- 
tions is  obviously  a  very  delicate  matter,  and  too  much  confidence  should 
not  be  placed  in  any  individual's  judgment.  Lessing's  dictum,  that  an 
imitator  is  prone  to  pass  from  the  great  to  the  monstrous,  from  the  marvel- 
ous to  the  impossible  {Laocoon,  p.  38,  n.  2  Bliimner),  has  here  little  validity. 
We  must,  then,  proceed  with  great  caution,  and  I  should  say  in  advance 
that  I  personally  do  not  have  the  highest  confidence  in  deductions  made 
from  such  evidence  alone.  While  the  attitude  of  a  modern  investigator 
would  be  entirely  different  from  that  of  a  Riccoboni  or  a  Sigonius,  there  is 
no  better  illustration  of  the  possibihty  of  interpreting  evidence  in  opposite 
ways.  It  is  almost  laughable  to  note  how  confidently  Riccoboni  will  point 
out  passages  in  which  our  Consolatio  and  the  Tusculans,  for  example,  are 
similar,  .and  assert  that  forgery  is  thereby  proved,  while  Sigonius  will  draw 
the  opposite  inference,  and  charge  that  Cicero  in  the  Tusculans  was  the 
imitator.  When  even  sixteenth-century  scholars  can  differ  so  radically, 
we  should  use  more  care  than  has  sometimes  been  employed.  The  difficulty 
of  our  task  is  increased  by  the  skill  with  which  the  forger,  if  it  be  a  forger, 
has  done  his  work. 

Riccoboni  calls  attention  to  the  similarity  in  the  use  of  those  stock  exam- 
ples, Cleobis  and  Bito,  Trophonius  and  Agamedes,  Cons.  28;  Tusc.  i.  57. 


AUTHENTICITY   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  29 

113  flf.  A  resemblance  in  form  would  be  almost  inevitable:  the  stories, 
as  we  saw  above  (p.  13),  were  part  of  the  rhetorical  common  property,  and 
it  would  seem  unduly  subtle  to  say  that  one  use  of  them  is  an  imitation  of 
another.  The  same  use  is  made  of  the  Silenus  story,  for  which  see  above, 
p.  14.  This  story  is  followed  in  both  our  Consolatio  and  the  Tusculans  by 
a  reference  to  Euripides,  in  the  latter  case,  with  a  quotation  from  the  Cres- 
phontes,  in  the  former,  without  it,  "ut,"  says  Riccoboni,  "imitatio  magis 
occultaretur." 

Riccoboni  points  out  the  similarity  in  the  list  oi.exempla  in  the  two  works. 
Note  especially  Tusc.  i.  37.  89,  where  Lucius  Brutus,  the  three  Decii,  the 
Scipios,  Paulus,  Geminus,  Marcellus,  Albinus,  and  Gracchus  are  mentioned, 
and  Cons.  126  (Lucius  Brutus,  the  two  Decii,  Scipio,  Paulus,  Marcellus, 
Albinus).  The  treatment  of  exempla  in  general  is  worth  a  brief  considera- 
tion. Not  only  is  there  a  resemblance  in  the  names,  which  would  be  natural, 
but  other  similarities  that  are  more  striking  may  be  observed.  An  example 
is  the  following  (Cons.  115):    "et  Priamum  non  omni  orbatum  progenie 

summoque   dolore    confectum    hostilis    manus   interemerit (116) 

Miserabiliter  decantata  Haec  omnia  ....  turpari Num  ei  multo 

melius  evenisset,  si  vitam  omnino  multis  ante  annis  quam  haec  acciderent 
amisisset?"  Cf.  Tusc.  i.  35.  85:  "Priamum  tanta  progenie  orbatum,  cum 
in  aram  confugisset,  hostilis  manus  interemit At  certe  melius  evenis- 
set nee  tarn  flebiliter  ilia  canerentur  Haec  omnia  ....  turpari."  Equally 
interesting  is  the  use  of  the  fate  of  Pompey,  which  follows  in  both.  Cons. 
123:  "Pompeii  autem,  nostri  familiaris,  casu  quid  in  civitate  notius, 
quid  illustrius,  quid  omnium  oculis  ac  mentibus  perspectius  et  clarius? 

Hunc,  si  mature  extinctus  esset,  nihil  doloris,  nihil  invasisset  mali 

(124)  Sed  videamus  quantum  in  rebus  humanis  fortunae  possit  iniuria. 
Nisi  malimus  ad  propriam  mortalis  vitae  nimis  asperam  miseramque  con- 
dicionem  omnia  mala  revocare.  Qui  enim  amplissimis  fortunis  usus  erat, 
qui  nihil  nisi  sublime  ac  beatum  nee  cogitare  nee  optare  consueverat,  cui 
omnia  vel  ad  usum  vel  ad  voluptatem  supererant,  bellum  cum  socero  sus- 
cepit,  deseruit  domum,  profugit  ex  Italia,  et  cum  antea  nihil  in  ceteris  bellis 
nisi  summo  consilio  prudentiaque  gessisset,  cum  vel  maxime  ingenio  iudi- 
cioque  excellere  debuisset,  sui  paene  oblitus  est.  (125)  Itaque  imbelles 
et  infirm  as  copias,  tirones  coUecticiosque  milites  cum  robustissimis  legioni- 
bus  conferre  non  dubitavit,  et  amisso  exercitu  ereptisque  castris  turpissime 

victus  in  servorum  manus  vir  summus  et  clarissimus  incidit Beatis- 

simus  autem  obiisset,  si,  cum  in  re  publica  florebat,  cum  valebat  auctoritate 
et  gratia,  cum  copiis  opibusque  aflfluebat,  e  vita  decessisset.  Cuius  pro- 
pagatio  quantum  maeroris  et  luctus  attulerit,  non  modo  scribendo,  sed 


30  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

vix  etiam  cogitando,  consequi  quisquam  possit."  The  passage  in  the 
Tusculans  is  less  carefully  worked  out,  and  lacks  especially  the  elaborate 
syncrisis  which  is  so  marked  a  feature  of  the  other.  Tusc.  i.  35.  86:  "Pom- 
peio  nostro  familiari,  cum  graviter  aegrotaret  Neapoli,  melius  est  factum. 
....  Utrum  igitur,  si  tum  esset  extinctus,  a  bonis  rebus  an  a  malis,  dis- 
cessisset  ?  Certe  a  miseris.  Non  enim  cum  socero  bellum  gessisset,  non 
imparatus  arma  sumpsisset,  non  domum  reliquisset,  non  ex  Italia  fugisset, 
non,  exercitu  amisso,  nudus  in  servorum  ferrum  et  manus  incidisset  [non 
liberi  defleti,  non  fortunae  omnes  a  victoribus  possiderentur].  Qui  si 
mortem  tum  obiisset,  in  amplissimis  fortunis  occidisset,  is  propagatione 
vitae  quot,  quantas,  quam  incredibiles  hausit  calamitates !"  The  close 
connection  between  the  two  passages  is  obvious,  despite  the  greater  pains 
bestowed  upon  the  Consolatio.  The  inference  that  some  relation  exists 
between  them  can  hardly  be  avoided.  Such  a  similarity  can  hardly  have 
been  a  mere  accident.  Cicero  probably  nowhere  expresses  so  freely  an 
uncomphmentary  opinion  of  Pompey's  conduct  in  the  final  scenes  of  his 
life  as  here,  but  cf.  Ad  Jam.  vii.  3.  2:  "vir  ille  summus  nuUus  iraperator 
fuit."     Yet  we  must  guard  against  a  premature  conclusion. 

Attention  was  called  by  Riccoboni  to  the  discrepancy  between  our 
Consolatio  and  the  Tusculans  in  the  account  of  the  Decii.  In  the  latter 
that  form  of  the  story  is  adopted  which  causes  three  members  of  the  family 
to  give  their  lives  for  their  country,  in  the  former  apparently  only  two 
are  mentioned.  The  accounts  of  these  personages  are  so  contradictory 
that  it  is  almost  impossible  to  convict  anyone  of  a  historical  blunder.  Else- 
where Cicero  mentions  only  two,  e.  g.,  De  off.  iii.  4. 16,  and  Cato  Mai.  20.  75. 

So  much  for  the  parallelism  between  our  Consolatio  and  the  Tusculans 
in  the  matter  of  exempla.  Some  resemblances  to  other  works  may  now  be 
noted.  An  interesting  case  is  the  Crassus  passage  (Cons.  118  ff.):  "Nam, 
qua  in  patriam  pietate  fuit,  ex  iis  malis  quae  mortem  eius  consecuta  sunt, 
incredibilem,  si  vixisset,  dolorem  accepisset.  (119)  Flagravit  enim  bello 
Italia,  exarsit  senatus  invidia,  nihil  denique  in  civitate  fuit  quod  non  eius 
temporis  calamitatem  luctumque  persenserit.  Nam  quid  fugam  Marii, 
quid  cetera  quae  in  illius  discessu  acciderunt,  maxime  luctuosa  summeque 
miseranda  commemorem  ?  quid  reditum  ilium  sanguinarium,  cuius  ex 
recordatione  nemo  est  qui  non  intimis  sensibus  exhorrescat."  The  account 
of  the  death  of  Crassus  in  De  oratore  iii.  2.  8  immediately  comes  to  mind: 
"Non  vidit  flagrantem  bello  Italiam,  non  ardentem  invidia  senatum,  non 
sceleris  nefarii  principes  civitatis  reos,  non  luctum  filiae,  non  exihum  generi, 
non  acerbissimam  C.  Marii  fugam,  non  illam  post  reditum  eius  caedem 
omnium  crudelissimam,  non  denique  in  omni  genere  deformatam  earn 


AUTHENTICITY   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  3I 

civitatem,  in  qua  ipse  florentissima  multum  omnibus  [gloria]  praestitisset." 
Sigonius'  comment  on  the  passage  is  worth  quoting:  "Hoc  mihi  vere  videor 
esse  dicturus,  Ciceronem  nuUo  in  loco  uberius  flumen  eloquentiae  profudisse 
quam  in  prooemiis  librorum  De  oratore,  et  tamen,  cum  ibi  et  hie  argumen- 
tum  idem  tractavit,  hie  videri  omnia  maiore  ornatur,  ac  copia  explicuisse, 
ac  nescio  quo  modo  insigniorem  verborum  florem  ac  lumen  orationis  adhi- 
buisse." 

Let  us  examine  a  few  more  of  the  many  similar  passages.  A  close  ver- 
bal parallel  may  be  seen  in  Cons.  58:  "Itaque  Cato  sic  e  vita  discessit, 
ut  laetaretur,  causam  se  nactum  esse  moriendi,"  and  Tiisc.  i.  30.  74:  "Cato 
autem  sic  abiit  e  vita,  ut  causam  moriendi  nactum  se  esse  gauderet." 
Another  is  Cons.  72 :  "  tantumque  mentis  lumen,  e  divina  natura  delibatum, 
posse  exstingui,"  and  Cato  Mai.  n.  36:  "nam  haec  quoque  {sc.  vires  animi) 
nisi  tamquam  lumini  oleum  instilles,  exstinguuntur  senectute,"  and  Cato 
Mai.  21.  78:  ^^pliis  numquam  dubitasse  quin  ex  universa  mente  divina 
delibatos  animos  haberemus."  The  mixture  of  figures  may  be  explained 
on  the  theory  of  contamination.  Another  possible  imitation  may  be  seen 
in  "si  eorum  {sc.  deorum)  voluntati  repugnet,  cum  dis  gigantum  more 
bellare  videbitur"  {Cons.  6),  and  "quid  est  ahud  gigantum  more  bellare 
cum  dis  nisi  naturae  repugnare?"  {Cato  Mai.  2.  6).  The  anecdote  of 
Panaetius,  told  in  Cons.  129,  is  also  to  be  found,  though  in  rather  different 
language,  in  De  off.  i.  26.  90.  Cf.  the  very  close  parallelism  between  Cons. 
70  and  De  repub.  iii.  i  (= August.  Contra  ltd.  Pelag.  4.  12),  and  between 
Cons.  184  and  De  repub.  iii.  28.  40  (= August.  De  civit.  Dei  xxii.  4). 
Another  example  is  Cons.  41  and  Ad  Att.  xii.  21.  5.  In  numerous  passages 
similar  ideas  are  expressed  in  different  language:  an  example  was  quoted 
above  (p.  18),  Cons.  106  and  Tusc.  i.  19.  44. 

To  these  may  be  added  some  resemblances  to  passages  in  other  authors, 
notably  Valerius  Maximus.  I  shall  quote  at  length  a  single  example, 
Cons.  98:  "Quod  singularis  virtutis  exemplum  [the  reference  is  to  the  con- 
duct of  Fabius  after  the  death  of  his  son]  fortasse  Horatii  Pulvilli  laudem 
magna  ex  parte  diminuere  videatur;  quem  tamen  summum  virum  silentio 
praeterire  nefas  ducimus,  cum  in  eo  ipso,  quod  filii  mortem  aequissimo  ac 
fortissimo  animo  tulit,  etiam  lovi  optimo  maximo,  cuius  aedem  dedicabat, 
gratissimum  fecisse  videatur.  Nam  pontifex  inter  sollemnium  verborum 
nuncupationem  postem  tenens,  ut  filium  mortuum  audivit,  neque  manum 
a  poste  removit,  ne  sacra  dirimeret,  nee  vultum  a  populo  avertit,  ne  suum 
potius  dolorem  quam  populi  utilitatem  ac  salutem  cogitare  videretur." 
Then  follows  the  story  of  Aemilius  Paulus.  Cf .  Val.  Max.  v.  10.  i :  "  Horatius 
Pulvillus  cum  in  Capitolio  lovi  optimo  maximo  aedem  pontifex  dedicaret 


32  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO      ' 

interque  nuncupationem  soUemnium  verborum  postern  tenens  mortuum 
esse  filium  audisset,  neque  manum  a  poste  removit,  ne  tanti  templi 
dedicationem  interrumperet,  nee  vultum  a  publica  religione  ad  privatum 
dolorem  deflexit,  ne  patris  magis  quam  pontificis  partes  egisse  videretur. 
Clarum  exemplum,  nee  minus  tamen  illustre  quod  sequitur."  The  follow- 
ing here  too  is  the  story  of  Aemilius  Paulus.  In  addition  to  the  general 
similarity  of  language,  one  may  note  that  nuncupatio  is  nowhere  reported 
by  the  lexica  to  Cicero,  though  I  should  not  attach  too  great  importance  to 
such  a  fact.  The  resemblance  between  the  opening  words  in  the  Consolatio 
and  the  closing  formula  of  the  other  is  curious  and  perhaps  not  without 
significance.  Valerius,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  needed  no  introduction, 
while  the  author  of  our  Consolatio  did.  The  last  sentence  in  Valerius 
serves  as  a  perfect  transition  to  the  following  section,  and  the  similar  sentence 
in  our  Consolatio  is  equally  good  as  a  connecting  link  between  Fabius  and 
Pulvillus.  For  other  examples  of  close  verbal  paralleKsm,  cf.  Cons.  99 
with  Val.  Max.  v.  10.  2;  Cons.  80  with  Val.  Max.  v.  10,  Ext.  2;  Cons.  82 
with  Val.  Max.  v.  10,  Ext.  i.  That  this  Consolatio  was  not  Valerius'  only 
source  is  proved  by  the  greater  detail  given  by  him  in  such  passages  as  that 
dealing  with  Aemilius,  as  that  relating  the  courage  of  Theramenes,  and 
by  the  sUght  difference  in  the  accounts  of  Hasdrubal's  wife.  This  being 
the  case,  it  is  not  a  necessary  assumption  that  it  is  a  source  at  all,  a  possi- 
bility that  must  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  come  to  study  the  date  of  the 
author.  One  more  point  in  connection  with  Valerius.  References  to  the 
consul  Thalna  are  infrequent  in  Roman  literature.  In  Cons.  137  we  read: 
"  item  que  Thalnae  consuli,  dis  immortalibus  sacrificanti."  The  same  inci- 
dent is  related  by  Valerius  ix.  12. 3,  though  without  any  obvious  verbal  relation. 

The  whole  matter  of  the  use  of  exempla  deserves  a  word  of  comment. 
We  have  seen  a  suspicious  resemblance  in  our  Consolatio  to  the  Tusculans 
and  to  Valerius  Maximus.  Let  us  now  consider  the  relation  between  our 
Consolatio  and  the  list  of  Romans  mentioned  by  Hieronymus  as  included 
by  Cicero  in  his  Consolatio.  This  list  was  quoted  above,  p.  18,  in  connec- 
tion with  sec.  loi.  With  the  exception  of  the  Scauri,  all  these  names  are 
met  with  in  our  Consolatio.  On  the  basis  of  so  small  a  difference  one 
would  hardly  be  justified  in  drawing  conclusions.  We  may,  however,  raise 
the  question  whether  explicavit  is  the  proper  word  to  apply  to  such  a  sum- 
mary enumeration  as  that  in  sec.  loi. 

In  a  number  of  letters  to  Atticus,  Cicero  asks  for  information  on  certain 
points;  cf.  Ad  Att.  xii.  20.  2:  "VeUm  me  facias  certiorem  proximis  Utteris, 
Cn.  Caepio,  Serviliae  Claudi  pater,  vivone  patre  suo  naufragio  perierit, 
an  mortuo,  item  Rutilia  vivone  C.  Cotta,  filio  suo,  mortua  sit,  an  mortuo. 


AUTHENTICITY   OF   OUR  CONSOLATIO  33 

Pertinent  ad  eum  librum,  quern  de  luctu  minuendo  scripsimus;"  cf.  xii. 
22.  2:  "De  Rutilia  quoniam  videris  dubitare,  scribes  ad  me  cum  scies,  sed 
quam  primum,  et  num  Clodia  D.  Bruto  consulari,  filio  suo,  mortuo  vixerit;" 
and  xii.  24.  2:  "Ut  ad  meas  ineptias  redeam,  velim  me  certiorem  facias,  P. 
Crassus,  Venuleiae  filius,  vivone  P.  Crasso  consulari,  patre  suo,  mortuus 
sit,  ut  ego  meminisse  videor,  an  post;  item  quaero  de  Regillo,  Lepidi  filio, 
rectene  meminerim  patre  suo  mortuum."  Miiller  in  his  Testimonia  quotes 
from  Ad  Att.  xii.  24.  2  a  number  of  questions  relating  to  the  embassy  of 
Carneades,  probably  on  account  of  the  words  with  which  they  are  intro- 
duced, "ut  scias  me  ita  dolere,  ut  non  iaceam."  I  should  hardly  consider 
this  sufficient  ground  for  assuming  that  this  information  was  desired  for 
the  Consolatio;  it  is  difficult  to  see  to  what  use  it  could  have  been  put  in  a 
consolation.  It  seems  better  to  take  it  with  Tyrrell  and  Purser,  ad  loc, 
as  intended  for  the  Academica.  If  we  may  trust  the  first  quotation,  the 
Consolatio  was  already  written  when  the  questions  were  asked  (note  the 
last  sentence).  Were  these  examples  really  then  in  the  Consolatio?  Ric- 
coboni  argued  that  they  were  not,  because  Hieronymus  does  not  include 
them  in  his  list;  Sigonius  argued  that  they  were,  for  they  were  afterward 
used  by  Seneca.  Hieronymus'  enumeration,  with  its  indefinite  plurals,  does 
not  give  the  impression  that  he  is  trying  or  pretending  to  make  his  list  com- 
plete, and  in  the  absence  of  surer  indications  it  is  safer  to  assume  that  they 
were  in  the  Consolatio  and  that  this  information  was  desired  simply  to  check 
up  the  statements  already  made.  This  may  receive  some  support  from  the 
"ut  ego  meminisse  videor"  of  xii.  24.  2.  Caepio  and  Crassus  are  mentioned, 
with  greater  detail  than  these  letters  alone  could  supply,  in  sec.  102  of  our 
Consolatio;  Regillus  may  be  represented  by  Lepidi  in  the  same  section. 
Other  exempla  occur,  some  probably  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  same  use 
as  here,  and  perhaps  in  some  cases  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  source, 
if  this  is  a  forgery.  A  noteworthy  example  is  the  laudatio  of  Fabius  Maxi- 
mus,  on  which  see  above,  p.  17.  "Where,"  triumphantly  exclaimed  Sigo- 
nius, "could  a  forger  have  found  the  oration  of  Fabius  Maximus?"  It 
was  known,  of  course,  in  the  days  of  Cicero  {Cato  Mai.  4.  12).  Some  of 
these  exempla  formed  part  of  the  rhetorical  stock  in  trade,  and  so  can  hardly 
be  used  in  proof  of  anything.  Perhaps  some  of  those  mentioned  really 
come  under  this  head.  Yet  the  resemblance  in  form  is  so  striking  that  the 
more  plausible  explanation  seems  to  be  the  one  I  have  given.  It  is  a  diffi- 
cult matter  to  decide  what  equipment  an  earlier  age  had,  to  know  whether 
a  Sigonius,  or  harder  yet,  a  Barzizza,  could  have  commanded  the  necessary 
information.  If  our  Consolatio  is  ancient,  the  knowledge  would  have  been 
easy  enough  to  acquire. 


34  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

Let  US  return  for  a  moment  to  Ad  Att.  xii.  22.  2:  "De  Rutilia,  quoniam 
videris  dubitare,  scribes  ad  me,  cum  scies,  sed  quam  primum,  et  num  Clodia, 
D.  Bruto  consulari,  filio  suo,  mortuo  vixerit.  Id  de  Marcello  aut  certe  de 
Postumia  sciri  potest,  illud  autem  de  M.  Cotta  aut  de  Syro  aut  de  Satyro." 
Tyrrell  and  Purser,  ad  loc,  say  that  in  the  last  sentence  quoted  de  means 
"from"  four  times,  "concerning"  once  ("de  M.  Cotta").  "Syrus  and 
Satyrus,"  the  note  continues,  "were  no  doubt  literary  slaves  belonging  to 
Atticus."  If  this  note  be  correct,  M.  Cotta  is  another  exemplum,  who  is 
not  mentioned  in  our  Consolatio.  But  is  their  interpretation  the  true  one  ? 
Illud,  as  Tyrrell  and  Purser  say,  clearly  refers  to  the  question  regarding 
Rutilia,  who  was  the  mother  of  C.  Cotta.  It  seems  strange  that  Cicero 
should  have  allowed  de  to  behave  so  in  shifting  its  meaning.  Klotz,  alone 
among  the  editions  I  have  consulted,  reads  "aut  de  M.  Cotta,"  and  this 
may  be  the  right  reading.  Here,  as  in  so  many  cases,  one  would  like  to 
know  with  precision  the  reading  of  the  MSS.  Paleographically,  nothing 
is  easier  than  the  confusion  of  aut  and  autem  (written  with  an  abbreviation). 
However,  it  is  unnecessary  to  make  the  change.  No  aut  precedes  "de 
Marcello,"  and  there  need  be  none  here.  An  M.  Cotta  is  known  from 
Caesar  Bell.  civ.  i.  30.  2  and  Ad  Att.  x.  16.  3,  but  we  know  nothing  about 
his  life  to  lead  us  to  infer  that  he  would  be  a  suitable  exemplum.  He 
might  have  been  the  nephew  of  C.  Cotta,  son  of  Rutiha.  What  more 
natural  than  that  in  a  matter  of  family  history  an  appeal  for  information 
should  be  made  to  a  member  of  that  family  ?  It  is  easier  and  more  plau- 
sible to  translate  this  de,  "from,"  like  the  rest  than  to  make  a  ne^^ exemplum, 
M.  Cotta,  or  to  emend  to  read  C.  Cotta  in  our  passage.  We  need  not  then 
regard  this  as  a  proof  of  spuriousness. 

Some  of  the  poetic  quotations  in  our  Consolatio  are  worth  noticing. 
Among  the  most  interesting  are  the  Ennius  epitaph  and  the  verses  referring 
to  Telamon.  Both  are  found  elsewhere  in  Cicero,  the  former  in  Tusc.  i.  15. 
34  and  Cato  Mai.  20.  73;  the  latter  in  Tusc.  i.  18.  39  and  Ad  Jam.  ix.  26.  2. 
Perhaps  the  most  instructive  is  the  second.  In  the  Tusculans,  Cicero  uses 
the  words  in  their  reference  to  Telamon  (Ribbeck  I.  Inc.  Fab.  50).  In  the 
letter  cited,  it  has  humorous  reference  to  Cicero  himself.  It  seems  doubt- 
ful whether  Cicero,  having  used  the  quotation  jokingly  in  a  letter  dated  46, 
would  have  used  it  seriously  of  himself  so  soon  thereafter  in  the  Consolatio, 
and  then  seriously  of  another  in  the  Tusculans. 

It  will  hardly  seem  to  anyone,  I  think,  that  much  can  be  safely  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  the  consolatory  commonplaces  are  expressed  everywhere 
in  very  similar  language.  It  is  then  unsafe  to  assume,  on  this  basis  alone, 
that  one  document  is  the  source  for  another. 


AUTHENTICITY   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  35 

Too  much  attention  has  usually  been  paid,  I  am  convinced,  in  discus- 
sions of  this  kind,  to  questions  of  style  and  language.  While  it  is  obvious 
that  such  questions  cannot  be  neglected,  their  evidence  cannot  always  be 
regarded  as  decisive.  The  choice  of  words  in  any  author  will  be  dictated 
at  different  times  by  different  considerations,  and  the  preservation  of  indi- 
vidual words  from  Roman  times  to  ours  is  conditioned  by  too  many  external 
circumstances.  It  is  true  that  in  the  discussion  of  a  document  like  our 
Consolatio,  the  presence  of  a  large  number  of  non-Ciceronian  words,  so 
called,  would  be  suspicious.  On  the  other  hand,  the  nature  of  the  subject 
renders  a  certain  resemblance  to  other  works  inevitable,  and  we  must 
guard  against  error  in  either  direction.  With  the  proviso  that  I  personally 
do  not  attach  so  much  importance  to  this  kind  of  evidence  as  to  some  others, 
I  present  for  the  sake  of  completeness  the  results  of  lexicographical  studies 
in  our  Consolatio.  Riccoboni  of  course  made  much  of  this  argument, 
though  he  did  not  cite  all  the  words  which  the  possession  of  better  apparatus 
enables  us  to  give.  For  this  particular  case,  the  exception  made  by  him 
needs  to  be  regarded,  obvious  misprints  are  not  to  be  considered,  but  the 
absence  of  MSS  makes  the  text  largely  a  matter  of  conjecture,  and  makes 
it  impossible  to  know  whether  we  have  the  genuine  text.  I  cite  first  the 
words  which  seem  not  to  occur  elsewhere  in  Cicero:  (8)  "vagitus,"  used 
by  Pliny,  Ovid,  Martial,  Celsus;  (19)  "profligatio,"  not  in  the  sense  of 
"loss"  before  Ausonius;  (19)  "captivitas,"  found  in  Seneca  and  Tacitus; 
of.  Madvig  on  Orelli  Cic.fragg.,  p.  71;  (21)  "deside,"  in  Livy  and  Colu- 
mella; (28)  "compage,"  always  in  the  plural  in  Cicero,  though  Lucretius 
and  Lucan  use  it  in  the  singular;  (29)  "exanimis,"  Virgil,  Livy,  et  al.; 
(31)  "immerentes,"  Nepos,  Horace,  Suetonius,  Lucretius,  Valerius  Flaccus; 
{2)2,)  "infeliciter,"  Terence,  Livy,  Quintilian,  Seneca;  (45)  "indecentms;" 
(52)  "pharmacorum,"  in  Gellius  and  Nonius;  (62)  "osor"  and  "detractor," 
the  former  in  Plautus  and  Apuleius,  the  latter  in  Tacitus;  (74)  "putris;" 
(98)  "nuncupatio,"  Suetonius,  Tacitus,  Pliny,  Valerius  Maximus,  on 
which  see  above,  p.  32;  (loi)  "ultio,"  Petronius,  Seneca,  Tacitus;  (106) 
"laetabundus,"  in  Gellius;  (107)  "confossum,"  no  example  in  Merguet, 
though  Forcellini  cites  it  from  Sidla  11 ;  (113)  "elucescit,"  in  Lactantius  and 
Augustine,  while  "eluceo"  occurs  in  Cicero;  (124)  "sublime"  used  in  Cicero 
only  adverbially,  though  freely  elsewhere  as  an  adjective;  (133)  "expaves- 
cere,"  Pliny,  Suetonius;  (160)  "letalis,"  Virgil,  Statius,  Pliny,  et  al.;  (162) 
"confectrix,"  which  appears  only  in  Lactantius  Inst.  vii.  11.  5,  which  how- 
ever is  based  on  Pro  Marc.  6;  (164)  "socordia,"  in  Plautus,  Auctor  ad 
Herennium,  Livy,  et  al.;  (175)  "immitis,"  used  by  Horace,  Livy,  Virgil; 
(197)  "Lacedaemones,"  while  Cicero  has  only  "Lacedaemonii,"  according 


36  THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN  CONSOLATIO 

to  Forcellini  and  Orelli  Onomasticon;  (203)  "imperitia,"  Sallust,  Taci- 
tus; (208)  "cepas"  and  "allia,"  both  cited  only  in  the  Grammarians; 
(209)  "absurditas,"  only  in  Claudianus  Mamertinus.  In  some  cases 
phrases  are  used  in  unusual  ways,  or  with  infrequent  meanings,  or  seem 
suggested  by  other  phrases:  (i)  "adhibere"  in  the  active  seems  not  to 
govern  the  dative  in  Cicero,  but  instead  ad  with  the  accusative,  e.  g.,  Tusc. 
iv.  29.  63;  the  dative  is  used  regularly  with  the  passive,  as  Tusc.  iv.  27.  59; 
(i)  "subvenire"  ("calamitati")  may  be  an  imitation  of  De  off.  i.  24.  63; 
(2)  "  gubernaculum  "  is  never  used  of  the  mind,  but  frequently  of  the  ship 
of  state;  (3)  "conditam  eloquentiam ;"  (4)  "in  ocuHs  ferebamus;"  (8) 
"infantia"  in  Cicero  seems  always  to  mean  lack  of  skill  in  speaking,  and 
is  not  used  of  an  aetas  before  Quintilian;  (9)  "odium  confiatum,"  cf.  Pro 
Cluent.  29.  79,  "invidiam  confiatam;"  (14)  "calamitatem  contrahere," 
cf.  Ad  Jam.  ii.  16.  5,  "molestias  contrahere;"  (25)  "indagare,"  never  in 
Cicero  with  a  clause;  (26)  "conglutinare,"  never  of  marriage,  but  of  friend- 
ship in  Lael.  9.  32;  (44)  "obduruisse  ad,"  the  usual  phrase  being  "obd. 
contra."  Sigonius  called  attention  to  the  use  by  Petrarch  {Lett.  sen.  x.  4) 
of  "obduruisse"  and  "occaluisse"  in  the  same  sentence.  Both  are  used 
elsewhere  in  Cicero,  but  not  used  together.  It  is  not  a  necessary  assump- 
tion from  Petrarch's  language  that  he  found  them  together.  The  meaning 
and  rarity  of  the  words  will  account  sufficiently  for  their  association.  It 
may  be  noted  that  Petrarch  uses  "obd.  contra."  It  can  be  shown  that 
Petrarch  did  not  know  the  Consolatio  (below,  p.  56) ;  whether  he  knew  our 
Consolatio  and  believed  it  spurious  cannot  be  ascertained.  (60)  "  Velarunt" 
always  used  literally  in  Cicero,  and  not  figuratively  before  Seneca  and  Pliny 
the  Younger;  (69)  "fortunae  temeritate"  may  be  suggested  by  De  nat. 
deorum  iii.  24.  61;  (70)  "lacrimis  temperare,"  cf.  the  same  phrase  in  Tac. 
Ann.  V.  16;  (85)  "callum  obducit,"  cf.  the  same  phrase  with  apologetic 
quasi  in  Tusc.  ii.  15.  36;  (124)  "coUecticios,"  the  same  phrase  is  used  in 
Ad.  Jam.  vii.  3.  2;  (129)  "in  gyrum  fortitudinis  ac  patientiae,"  cf.  De  off. 
i.  26.  90,  "tamquam  in  gyrum  rationis  et  doctrinae"  in  the  same  context; 

(143)  "actio"  is  hardly  used  in  the  sense  demanded  here:  cf.  Lebreton, 
La  langue  de  Ciceron,  s.  v.,  and  Nettleship  Contributions  to  Latin  Lexi- 
cography, s.  v.;   (144)  "corporis  admixtione  solutus,"  cf.  Cato  Mai.  22.  80; 

(144)  "gra vitas"  is  used  in  an  unusual  sense;  (146)  "in  mediis  doloribus 
et  aerumnis  obdormiscere,"  cf.  Tusc.  i.  49.  117,  "in  mediis  vitae  laboribus 
obdormiscere ;"  (146)  "satos  et  creatos,"  the  same  words  are  used  in  Tiisc. 
i.  49.  118;  (149)  "ficta  et  adumbrata,"  the  same  words  in  Lael.  26.  97; 
(152)  "pugnare  contra"  seems  to  be  used  in  the  Orations  only;  (159) 
"degenti"  is  not  used  without  "aetatem,"  "vitam,"  etc.,  though  frequently 


AUTHENTICITY   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  37 

with  them;  (170)  "fibras  doloris  evellendas,"  cf.  Tusc.  iii.  6.  13,  "fibras 
miseriarum  evellere;"  (175)  "cum  banc  ex  animis  nostris  opinionem  veluti 
immitem  quandam  et  immanem  beluam  extraxerimus,"  cf.  Acad.  ii.  34. 
108,  ''ut  feram  et  immanem  beluam,  sic  ex  animis  nostris  adsensionem 
....  extraxisset ;"  (198)  "qui  reconditas  eorum  scrutantur  litteras," 
cf.  Tm^c.  i.  13.  29,  "si  veroscrutarivetera  ....  coner,"  in  the  same  context. 

In  general,  then,  one  would  say  that  the  vocabulary  was  Ciceronian, 
in  some  cases  suspiciously  so,  but  that  the  number  of  words  that  are  not  found 
in  extant  works  of  Cicero  was  rather  large.  With  these  are  to  be  included 
the  words  and  phrases  that  are  used  in  non-Ciceronian  senses.  Most  of 
the  words  that  are  not  found  in  Cicero  come  into  use  during  the  next  cen- 
tury and  a  half,  or  are  earlier.  Of  course  the  fact  that  a  word  does  not 
happen  to  be  found  in  any  extant  work  of  Cicero  does  not  prove  that  he  never 
used  the  word.  That  is  a  commonplace  of  criticism.  It  is  only  by  cumula- 
tive evidence  of  that  kind  that  an  impression  is  formed.  A  study  of  the 
syntax  does  not  yield  any  striking  results.  Most  notable  among  the  verb 
uses  not  already  mentioned  is  the  fairly  frequent  use  of  quamquam  with  the 
subjunctive,  and  the  Ciceronian  indicative,  side  by  side.  Among  the  case 
constructions,  interesting  is  the  follovidng:  "Quid  his  feminis  faciam  ?" 
(108),  with  which  cf.  Ad  Jam.  xiv.  4.  3,  "quid  Tulhola  mea  fiet  ?"  With 
the  active  forms  the  regular  construction  is  de  with  the  ablative. 

Still  more  unsatisfactory  is  the  evidence  of  style.  The  qualities  of  style 
are  too  elusive,  the  judgment  of  style  too  dependent  on  subjective  consid- 
erations, to  render  such  arguments  convincing.  I  shall  therefore  waive, 
all  arguments,  on  whichever  side  they  might  be,  that  are  based  on  style 
alone.  Such  discussions  too  frequently  degenerate  into  mere  statement 
and  denial. 

Important  results  of  various  kinds  have  followed  the  revival  of  interest 
in  metrical  clausidae,  one  of  which  has  been  the  discovery  of  a  valuable 
test  for  authenticity,  as  Zielinski  ("Das  Clauselgesetz  in  Ciceros  Reden," 
Phil.  Supplbd.  IX.  806  ff.)  has  suggested.  (The  present  application  of 
the  test  is,  however,  independent  of  Zielinski's  suggestion.)  The  use  of 
a  clausule  by  Cicero  in  his  formal  works  is  so  constant  that  we  can  hardly 
suppose  it  to  have  been  otherwise  in  his  Consolatio.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  Cicero  himself  says  that  his  Consolatio  gave  no  indications  of  the  strain 
under  which  it  was  written  {Ad  Alt.  xii.  21.  5),  and  this  statement  is  con- 
firmed by  Lactantius  {Inst.  i.  15.  21  flf.).  Lactantius,  it  is  true,  might  have 
been  unduly  influenced  by  Cicero's  own  judgment,  and  might,  moreover, 
be  thinking  of  the  document  under  consideration,  but  it  need  hardly  be 
assumed  that  Cicero's  use  of  a  clausule  would  be  materially  affected  by  his 


38  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

grief.  The  surest  test  would  probably  be  a  thorough  examination  of  the 
Tusculans  and  other  works  of  the  same  period.  If  our  Consolatio  proves 
to  have  clausules  closely  resembling  those  of  admittedly  genuine  works 
of  Cicero,  the  fact  will  point  toward  the  genuineness  of  the  document, 
though  we  must  be  on  our  guard  against  very  skilful  imitation  of  Cicero's 
clausulae.  On  the  contrary,  divergence  in  any  considerable  degree  from 
Cicero's  usage  will  argue  in  favor  of  the  spuriousness  of  the  document,  and 
more  strongly  than  the  opposite  case  would  for  genuineness. 

Let  us  then  examine  the  text.  Despite  the  unsatisfactory  condition 
of  Nobbe's  text  as  regards  punctuation,  I  have  followed  it  closely,  to  avoid, 
so  far  as  possible,  subjective  influences,  including,  however,  only  the  larger 
subdivisions.^  In  sec.  66  I  have  read  amisimus  with  Klotz  where  Nobbe 
has  omisimus;  I  have  made  no  other  changes  except  that  genitives  singular 
of  nouns  in  -ius  and  -iufn  are  read  with  ending  -i,  not  -ii,  as  printed  in 
Nobbe.  It  is  indisputable  that  good  clausulae  do  exist.  Such  are,  for 
example,  (4)  antea  movebamur;  (13)  sustinet  munera;  (7)  multis  tractata 
sunt;  (21)  pluribus  disputare;  (28)  heatum^ audent  nominare.  Metrically 
equivalent  examples  without  coincidence  of  word-  and  group-accent  are: 
(38).  diXigMlus  relinquatur;  (3)  \Qg\mus  necessario;  (16)  viventem  mortuum; 
(95)  omxiino  dolendum  fuisse;  (23)  praesentis  instituti.  The  prevailing 
forms  of  clausulae  in  our  Consolatio  are  these :  (a)  double  trochee,  usually 
without  the  cretic  basis;  {h)  cretic  followed  by  spondee  or  trochee;  (c) 
double  cretic;  {d)  cretic  preceded  by  certain  combinations;  {e)  heroic 
clausule,  comment  on  which  will  be  made  later.  Forms  derived  from  these 
by  resolution  and  substitution  will  be  considered  with  them.  I  desire  to 
say  in  advance  that  I  personally  do  not  regard  as  proper  clausulae  all  the 
forms  that  follow. 

a)  The  type  (2)  v&lere  possis  is  most  common,  but  the  form  (i)  nobis 
ipsis  is  also  of  frequent  occurrence,  while  the  preceding  cretic  basis  is  often 
omitted.  Examples  of  its  use  have  been  cited.  Few  other  modifications 
are  found:  these  are  represented  by  (i)  calamitati;  (97)  cogitare  potuit; 
(47)  reiecimus  mininie  angit,  where  we  must  choose  between  the  assumption 
of  hiatus  and  the  admission  of  another  case  of  the  heroic  clausule. 

b)  More  varieties  are  found  of  this  class.  The  forms  (4)  antea  ^nove- 
bamur  and  (63)  essent  immissi  are  most  common.  The  quantitative  equiva- 
lent of  the  last  example  is  (40)  congres5W5  vel  complexus,  in  which  the  rela- 
tion of  the  clausule-accent  to  the  word-accent  is  not  clear,  a  relation  which 
I  do  not  care  to  discuss.     Frequently  one  of  the  long  syllables  is  resolved: 

I  The  smaller  word-groups  do  not  consistently,  or  even  commonly,  reveal  a  metrical 
form. 


AUTHENTICITY   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  39 

{14)  fuerit  aerumna;  (i)  \eviora  faciamus;  (59)  sa.epissim€  cupiat;  from 
resolution  of  the  substituted  long  comes  (87)  consuetudine  vincetur.  Vari- 
ous other  forms  occur  in  which  one  long  syllable  is  resolved,  while  from  the 
resolution  of  two  long  syllables  might  result  such  examples  as  (19)  efficere 
miser iorem;  (146)  praemia  statnerunl,  with  resolution  of  a  substituted  long; 
(93)  elafti  non  facile  queat,  notable  for  the  reason  that  one  of  the  resolved 
syllables  is  represented  by  parts  of  two  words,  -le  qu€-,  as  is  also  the  case 
in  (140)  prodiicere  liceret,  like  \eviora  faciamus,  (81)  sustinere  queat,  of  the 
type  of  sa,epissim€  ctipiat,  and  (124)  omnia  mala  revocare,  Uke  e&cere 
miseriorem.  Various  other  products  of  the  resolution  of  two  syllables  are 
represented  by  a  few,  or  by  single,  examples.  From  the  resolution  of  three 
long  syllables  might  be  conceived  to  result  (42)  hominem^esse  meminerit, 
if  such  a  combination  can  rightly  be  called  a  clausule. 

<:)  The  regular  form  (13)  sustinet  munera  is  common,  while  all  the  three 
possible  forms  with  substitution  are  found:  (7)  multis  tr aetata  sunt;  (69) 
mutationem  possit;  (92)  extorqueri  nolunt.  The  last  two  are  rare.  Reso- 
lutions of  the  simple  type  are  not  common,  the  most  frequent  form  being 
(214)  honore  decoravero.  Two  of  the  original  long  syllables  are  resolved 
in  such  cases  as  (18)  generibtis  hominum  loquar,  and  a  few  others.  Resolu- 
tions of  the  type  multis  tractata  sunt  are  not  uncommon:  (203)  expowVa 
censeri  potest;  (15)  XdiUdahilis  est  maxime,  in  which  the  substituted  long  is 
resolved.  Sometimes  the  form  mutationem  possit  is  resolved,  as  in  (21) 
maxime  sollicitat;  rarely  the  form  extorqueri  nolunt,  as  in  (201)  multis 
afferre  solet.  Not  infrequently  in  all  classes  two  long  syllables  are  resolved, 
as  in  (194)  hominibus  facile  cernitur,  while  possibly  into  a  form  with  three 
long  syllables  resolved  might  be  brought  such  a  collocation  as  (186)  cogni- 
tione  posita  sit. 

d)  A  large  number  of  examples  exhibit  the  form  of  (77)  elapsus  esset 
fUius;  about  a  dozen  the  similar  ■s>\xorum  carnificem  vocent  (69) ;  and  a  few 
the  form  (59)  saipientissimi  testimonio. 

e)  About  forty  cases  are  most  plausibly  to  be  explained  as  heroic  claus- 
ules,  a  very  large  number  as  compared  with  Zielinski's  figures  for  the 
Orations.  Some  of  these,  disregarding  the  matter  of  accent,  might  be  put 
into  other  classes,  e.  g.,  (4)  ipsis  medeamur;  (35)  prudentiae  documenta. 
It  is  hard  to  explain  away  such  cases  as  (16)  ])dX\enterque  tidisse,  (204) 
commemorare,  (65)  sollicitudo,  etc.  There  remains  a  score  of  cases  which 
it  is  impossible  to  refer  to  any  type,  however  generous  one  be  in  admit- 
ting substitutions  and  resolutions. 

Before  passing  on,  let  us  comment  briefly  on  the  facts  presented.  No 
such  elaborate  classification  as  that  of  Zielinski  has  been  attempted:   the 


40  THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

nature  of  the  problem  rendered  that  unnecessary.  Yet  even  with  the  sim- 
pler scheme  here  used,  difficulties  have  arisen.  Very  troublesome  has  been 
the  relation  of  the  word-  and  clausule-accent.  The  method  of  procedure 
and  the  disposition  of  individual  examples  might  differ  if  it  were  settled 
whether  the  Latin  accent  were  one  of  stress  or  of  pitch,  at  least  for  formal 
Latin,  as  Abbott  has  recently  argued  ("The  Accent  in  Vulgar  and  Formal 
Latin,"  Class.  Phil.  IL  444  £f.).  From  ignorance  of  this  relation  arises 
the  uncertainty  with  regard  to  many  cases.  Our  problem,  however,  is  not 
to  ascertain  what  clausulae  are  used,  but,  first  of  all,  whether  they  are  used. 
What  will  be  our  answer  ?  Apparently  there  are  clausulae  more  or  less  in 
accordance  with  Ciceronian  usage.  It  is  perhaps  questionable  whether 
excessive  liberties  have  not  been  taken  with  them.  The  most  serious  prob- 
lem in  a  study  of  this  kind  is  the  determination  of  the  permissible  variants. 
Substitutions  and  resolutions  undoubtedly  do  occur  in  the  most  formal 
works  of  Cicero:  the  well-known  fondness  for  the  esse  videatur  type  is 
sufl5cient  proof.  Aggregations  of  syllables  hke  (42)  hominetn^esse  meminerit 
and  (186)  cognitione  posita  sit  are  quantitative  equivalents  of  good  clausulae, 
yet  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  they  are  clausules  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term.  The  almost  metrical  movement  of  (77)  elapsus  esset  filius  (an  L- 
clausule)  may  be  observed  in  groups  of  other  forms,  e.  g.,  (96)  anteferre 
deheamus. 

In  ZieUnski's  tables,  the  proportion  of  V-  and  L-clausulae  is  about  86  per 
cent. ;  in  our  Consolatio,  with  a  most  liberal  interpretation,  the  proportion 
of  clausulae  of  the  same  types  as  he  includes  would  not  exceed  55  per  cent. 
Such  a  situation  speaks  strongly  against  the  Ciceronian  authorship  of  our 
Consolatio.  Can  it  help  us  to  date  the  document  ?  Perhaps.  The  use 
of  clausulae  may  prove  to  conform  to  their  use  at  some  of  the  periods  to 
which  the  composition  of  our  Consolatio  may  be  attributed.^ 

A  few  miscellaneous  points  remain  to  be  considered.  Attention  was 
directed  above  (p.  30)  to  the  passage  which  relates  to  the  orator  Crassus. 
In  the  following  section  (120),  which  continues  the  narrative,  occur  these 
words:  "Tenemus  enim  memoria,  aut  saltem  ex  patrum  scriptis  accepimus, 
crudelissimam  omnium  caedem  illo  tempore  esse  factam,"  etc.  For  a 
commentary  I  need  only  refer  to  Mr.  Hendrickson's  studies  in  method  of 
citation  {A.  J.  P.  XXVII,  No.  2).  GuUelmus  pointed  out  long  ago  that 
Cicero's  own  boyhood  reached  back  to  the  time  under  consideration,  but 
the  technical  feature  did  not  present  itself  to  him. 

In  some  cases  there  may  be  observed  what  seemed  to  the  early  critics 
Christian  points  of  view.  Perhaps  the  most  suspicious  of  these  is  the  fol- 
lowing (112):    "tamen  multo  maioribus  et  bonis  et  opibus,  quae  nulla 

I  The  clausulae  for  chaps,  i-xviii  are  given  in  full  in  Appendix  B. 


AUTHENTICITY   OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  4I 

vetustas  absumet,  nulla  vis  eripiet,  piorum  mentcs  assidue  potiuntur." 
The  early  students  of  the  question  were  chiefly  concerned  with  the  discus- 
sion of  immortality  contained  in  our  Consolatio,  and  in  the  maze  of  asser- 
tion and  denial  we  do  not  care  to  follow  them  far.  It  does  not  seem  that 
the  author  has  gone  beyond  the  limits  of  the  philosophers  in  any  notable 
degree.  Philosophy,  argues  Sigonius,  was  God's  gift  to  the  Greeks,  as  the 
Law  to  the  Hebrews,  and  we  must  not  wonder  if  their  philosophers  attained 
to  some  of  the  exalted  conceptions  usually  associated  with  Christianity. 
Such  a  statement  as  the  following  may  seem  at  first  surprising  (38):  "qui 
enim  nascentium  curam  suscipiunt,  qui  viventes  protegunt,  alunt,  tuentur, 
fovent,  cur  morientes  deserant  ?"  Yet  even  this  can  find  a  starting-point 
in  the  famous  words  of  Socrates  (Plato  Apol.  41  CD),  thus  translated  by 
Cicero  {Tusc.  i.  41.  99),  whence  an  imitator  would  most  naturally  derive 
them:  "nee  enim  cuiquam  bono  mali  quicquam  evenire  potest  nee  vivo 
nee  mortuo,  nee  umquam  eius  res  a  dis  immortalibus  negliguntur."  The 
statement  that  fife  is  but  an  inn  is  frequent  enough  in  ancient  literature, 
e.  g.,  Cato  Mai.  23.  64  (see  Cons.  45). 

Other  bits  of  evidence  of  various  sorts  may  be  deduced  from  the  preced- 
ing discussions,  and  the  body  of  evidence  presented  makes  no  claim  to 
completeness.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that  a  sufficient  mass  of  representa- 
tive evidence  has  been  offered  to  allow  a  decision  of  our  question.  Let  us 
then  pass  in  review  the  material  collected,  to  draw  our  inferences  as  the 
evidence  demands. 

The  study  of  the  fragments  gives  little  sure  evidence  either  way.  Such 
value  as  they  have  for  this  purpose  was  shown  in  the  discussion  on  pp.  25  ff. 
In  some  respects,  their  testimony  is  against  the  theory  of  authenticity.  In 
one  case,  our  Consolatio  hardly  agrees  with  the  account  of  the  fragment 
given  in  Lactantius,  which,  incidentally,  may  make  against  the  theory  that 
Lactantius  used  this  as  the  genuine  Consolatio.  It  may  be  mentioned  in 
passing  that  the  evidence  of  the  fragments  generally  is  against  the  theory 
of  a  Sigonian  origin,  as  in  cases  of  difference  they  agree  with  Patricius  and 
not  with  Sigonius.  In  the  last  fragment  discussed,  it  agrees  with  neither, 
but  the  change  is  so  slight  that  inference  is  unsafe.  The  fact  that  the  frag- 
ments occur  in  the  order  adopted  by  Sigonius  is  hardly  significant.  Sigo- 
nius or  one  of  his  contemporaries  might  intentionally  have  followed  or 
altered  the  order  adopted  in  the  printed  collection.  It  is  still  possible  that 
these  fragments  might  have  been  arranged  in  this  way  independently  of 
Sigonius.  The  order  itself  is  not  unnatural  or  impossible.  The  testimony 
of  the  fragments,  then,  cannot  be  regarded  as  decisive,  though  it  favors  the 
theory  of  spuriousness  rather  than  the  opposite. 


42  THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

Perhaps  we  may  reach  more  definite  conclusions  when  we  come  to  con- 
sider the  relation,  in  language  and  thought,  of  our  Consolatio  to  other  works 
of  Cicero.  I  have  stated  with  sufficient  fulness  my  belief  that  resemblance 
in  form  does  not  necessarily  imply  relationship,  and  still  less  the  direction 
of  the  indebtedness,  in  case  one  is  otherwise  shown  to  exist.  Yet  it  would 
seem  that  in  the  case  of  our  Consolatio  and  the  Tuscidans,  at  least,  a  relation 
must  be  assumed,  to  account  for  the  striking  similarities  that  were  pointed 
out  above.  A  connection  between  the  genuine  Consolatio  and  the  Tuscu- 
lans  is  necessary,  as  was  shown  above  (p.  i).  If  this  were  the  genuine 
Consolatio,  the  decisive  argument  would  be  the  time  of  completion  of  the  two 
works.  As  we  are  not  sure  whether  or  no  this  is  the  genuine,  we  must  not 
consider  the  time  element.  Which,  then,  of  the  various  theories  will  most 
plausibly  explain  what  seem  to  be  the  facts  ?  Such  large  agreements  can- 
not reasonably  be  explained  as  coincidences.  Shall  we  say  that  the  simi- 
larity is  due  to  the  fact  that  both  are  products  of  the  same  mind,  that  our 
Consolatio  imitates  the  Tusculans,  or  the  Tusculans  our  Consolatio  ?  It 
is  difficult  to  establish  certain  standards  of  imitation.  We  have  already 
rejected  the  comparison  of  style.  Yet  we  must,  if  possible,  render  a  ver- 
dict on  this  point.  If  we  cannot  tell  with  certainty  from  the  passages  them- 
selves, the  question  of  motive  would  enter  into  the  discussion.  Would 
Cicero,  having  written  the  Consolatio  early  in  45,  have  allowed  himself  to 
repeat  the  language  of  the  Consolatio  to  this  extent  in  the  Tusculans,  written 
within  the  next  year,  at  least  ?  The  chances  are,  it  seems  to  me,  that  he 
would  not  have  done  so.  While  it  is  easy  enough  to  parallel  the  use  by 
Cicero  of  the  same  ideas  in  different  places,  never,  so  far  as  I  am  aware, 
does  he  repeat  his  own  words  so  exactly,  or  his  thoughts  with  such  close 
attention  to  detail.  This  would  argue  either  our  Consolatio  or  the  Tuscu- 
lans a  forgery.  The  genuineness  of  the  Tusculans  can  hardly  be  challenged 
successfully.  All  the  evidence  is  in  favor  of  its  authenticity.  In  addition 
to  the  testimony  of  the  MSS,  the  description  of  its  contents  by  Cicero  in  De 
div.  ii.  I.  2  has  sufficient  detail  to  make  it  clear  that  the  work  is  genuine. 
On  the  other  hand,  our  Consolatio  lacks  this  external  support.  The  evi- 
dence of  the  MSS  is,  so  fan:  as  we  know,  wanting,  its  history  incomplete  and 
suspicious.  The  clear  tradition  of  the  Tusculans  is  absent.  The  probabil- 
ity is  that  the  author  of  our  Consolatio  is  the  imitator.  Let  us  see  whether 
this  general  conclusion  can  be  supported  by  individual  arguments.  The 
variation  in  the  forms  of  the  Silenus  story  in  the  two  places  does  not  speak 
eloquently  against  the  agreement  in  so  many  other  particulars.  The 
similarity  in  the  list  of  exempla  is  insignificant  as  compared  with  the  remark- 
able resemblance  in  form,  especially  in  the  cases  of  Pompey  and  Priam.     It 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  OUR  CONSOLATIO  43 

is  perhaps  fanciful  to  suggest  that  the  statements  regarding  Priam  in  the 
Tuscidans  answer  almost  word  for  word  the  rhetorical  questions  in  our 
Consolatio.  The  only  inference  one  could  safely  draw  from  the  differences 
in  the  Decii  story  would  be  that  it  is  unHkely  that  Cicero  would  have  used 
different  versions  in  the  Consolatio  and  the  Tusculans,  particularly  as  the 
former  was  a  source  for  the  latter.  I  have  commented  above  on  the  possible 
relations  of  the  author  to  Valerius  Maximus  and  to  Hieronymus  (p.  32). 
Nothing  is  settled  by  this,  by  reason  of  the  possibiUty  that  our  Consolatio, 
though  a  forgery,  precedes  them,  and  was  used  by  them  as  the  genuine. 
The  evidence  from  the  requests  for  information  made  to  Atticus  is  not  con- 
vincing, on  account  of  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  use  to  which  some  of  the 
information  is  to  be  put.  Among  the  quotations  the  most  interesting  is 
the  one  beginning  "cuius  ob  os."  For  this  an  explanation  was  suggested 
above  (p.  34).  The  mixture  of  figures  in  sec.  72  (above,  p.  31)  is  perhaps 
not  without  significance,  when  one  thinks  of  the  possible  sources  of  the 
ideas,  both  of  which  are  intelligible  by  themselves,  and  are  found  independ- 
ently. With  regard  to  the  Latinity  of  the  document,  the  vocabulary  is 
more  significant  than  the  syntax.  Striking  contrasts  exist,  the  startling  use 
of  Ciceronian  words  and  phrases  in  the  same  form,  or  nearly  the  same,  as 
found  elsewhere,  and  the  fairly  large  number  of  non-Ciceronian  words. 
It  is  hardly  credible  that  in  a  genuine  work  of  this  character  such  a  situation 
would  exist.  Cicero  would  hardly  have  ventured  such  wholesale  repetitions 
so  soon  in  the  Tusculans.  The  syntax,  like  the  vocabulary,  would  seem 
to  belong  to  a  date  not  earlier  than  the  first  or  second  century  a.  d.,  and 
possibly  much  later.  The  dausulae  can  scarcely  be  called  Ciceronian. 
Good  clausules  certainly  are  found,  but  this  does  not  necessarily  mean  that 
the  author  used  them  as  Cicero  would  have  used  them.  The  state  of  affairs 
in  the  Tusculans,  where  the  greatest  resemblance  might  be  expected,  is 
quite  different.  The  heroic  clausule,  which,  like  other  poetic  forms,  was 
usually  avoided,  is  here  freely  used.  The  number  of  examples  that  proved 
irreconcilable  with  recognized  forms  is  fairly  large,  especially  if  there  be 
added  to  this  list  the  considerable  number  of  peculiar  endings.  More 
than  this,  the  proportion  of  good  dausulae  is  far  less  than  in  genuine  works 
of  Cicero,  55  per  cent,  as  compared  with  86  per  cent,  in  the  Orations.  One 
other  point,  of  considerable  interest,  remains.  Among  the  large  group  that 
are  not  real  clausules  there  are  some  that  may  be  reclaimed  by  adopting 
another  theory  and  regarding  them  as  rhythmical.  Many  quantitative 
dausulae,  though  not  all,  will  exhibit  no  clash  of  word-  and  group-accent, 
and  so  could  be  either  quantitative  or  rhythmical.  Other  dausulae  which 
are  quantitatively  correct  will  correspond  to  different  rhythmical  forms. 


44  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

Still  others  which  are  quantitative  failures  will  be,  rhythmically  considered, 
good  clausidae.  Examples  of  the  first  class  are  (21)  pluribus  disputare; 
(216)  mortcdium  consecrabo;  (39)  consequentis  aetatis,  etc.  In  the  case  of 
these,  one  may  not  decide  whether  the  clausule  has  a  quantitative  or  a 
rhythmical  basis;  the  same  is  true  of  the  second  class,  of  which  I  now  give 
examples:  (97)  se.Ymone  persequitur,  which  if  quantitative,  belongs  to  class 
b)  above,  if  rhythmical,  corresponds  to  the  quantitative  class  c) ;  the  same 
is  true  of  (148)  dubitatiowe  perfruitur.  These  examples  need  not  then 
be  considered  accentual,  and  the  question  whether  to  consider  them  so 
can,  for  our  purposes,  be  answered  only  when  the  relation  of  the  word-  and 
clausule-accent  is  determined.  The  third  class  includes  a  fair  number  of 
cases,  e.  g.,  {ig^)  facile  cernitur;  (35)  quibus  expediat;  (2)  corporis  indiget; 
(150)  facile  cederent;  (94)  magis  idonea;  etc.,  which  have  a  suspicious 
resemblance  to  the  mediaeval  cursus.  The  possible  bearing  of  this  on  the 
date  of  our  Consolatio  will  come  up  later.  The  presence  of  such  clausulae 
here  in  considerable  numbers  is  to  my  mind  almost  conclusive  proof  that 
our  Consolatio  is  not  genuine.  Various  interesting  questions  suggest 
themselves.  Is  the  presence  of  clausulae  here  a  mere  chance?  Did  the 
author  try  consciously  to  imitate  Cicero  in  the  matter  of  clausulae,  as  in  so 
many  other  respects,  but  meet  with  only  partial  success  ?  Does  the  work 
date  from  a  time  when  the  study  of  clausulae  was  still  in  its  infancy,  and  the 
Ciceronian  clausule  not  well  understood?  Was  the  author  so  at  home 
in  Latin  that  clausules  came  naturally  and  unconsciously  to  him  ?  Possibly 
an  answer  to  these  questions  can  be  found. 

The  single  specimen  of  the  author's  method  of  citation  revealed  a  naivet6 
that  is  quite  un- Ciceronian.  The  other  bits  of  evidence  were  not  conclusive. 
Our  general  conclusion  would  seem  to  be  that  the  work  is  a  forgery.  Will 
this  assumption  explain  the  facts?  An  imitator,  working  with  a  private 
or  pubHc  collection  of  fragments  or  with  the  real  Consolatio,  might  per- 
fectly well  have  woven  these  extracts  into  the  fabric  of  the  narrative  so  as 
to  make  a  complete  and  harmonious  whole.  The  relation  to  the  Tusculans 
can  plausibly  be  explained  only  on  the  theory  that  the  work  is  a  forgery. 
With  the  exception  of  the  Tusculans,  which  would  naturally  be  the  main 
source  of  an  imitator,  the  relations  are  in  general  most  close  with  those 
authors  who  were  well  known  at  all  times.  The  author's  weakness  lies  in 
his  too  great  fondness  for  Ciceronian  phraseology,  which  led  him  into 
excesses  of  imitation.  An  interesting  and  perhaps  significant  example  is 
afforded  by  Cons.  41  and  Ad  Alt.  xii.  21.  5,  quoted  above,  p.  14.  The 
Cicero  of  the  letter  is  willing  accipere  niedicinam,  the  Cicero  of  our  Con- 
solatio, not  only  accipere,  sed  etiam  exquirere,  medicinam.     This  is  perhaps . 


m 
AUTHENTICITY  OF   OUR   CONSOLATIO  45 

the  clearest  expression  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  our  author  to  outdo  the 
Cicero  we  know  from  other  sources  in  resolute  endurance  of  misfortune,  a 
steadfastness  of  which  the  real  Cicero,  in  real  misfortune,  was  not  capable. 
In  the  case  of  the  "cuius  ob  os"  quotation,  his  memory  or  his  knowledge 
failed  him,  and  he  committed,  as  a  result,  a  tactical  blunder.  The  language 
and  syntax  are  what  we  might  expect  from  a  student  of  a  later  age,  who 
had  steeped  himself  in  Cicero,  perhaps  for  the  purpose  of  forging  this  docu- 
ment. We  should  compliment  the  forger  on  the  skill  with  which  he  has 
done  his  work.  Max  Miiller  is  said  to  have  read  our  Consolatio  with  no 
idea  that  it  was  spurious,  though  the  impression  is  not  that  which  one  gets 
from  Cicero's  philosophical  works  generally,  and  Farrer  {Literary  Forgeries, 
p.  5)  calls  it  "as  well  worth  reading  as  many  of  Cicero's  undoubted  works." 
As  for  the  motive  for  the  forgery,  it  is  hard  to  say  what  it  might  have  been. 
A  rhetorical  exercise  of  more  than  usual  extent  and  formality  might  have 
been  the  intention.  Conceivably  it  was  a  deUberate  falsification.  In  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge  it  is  impossible  to  make  out  the  real  purpose. 

While  it  is  possible  that  no  one  piece  of  evidence  that  has  been  presented 
will  carry  with  it  unreserved  conviction  that  our  Consolatio  is  spurious, 
the  total  effect  would  seem  to  me  to  be  decisive.  We  have  tried  in  the 
consideration  of  details  to  keep  the  point  of  view  of  scientific  objectivity  and 
impartiality.  We  can  now  afford  to  let  our  judgment  that  is  based  on  less 
tangible  evidence  confirm,  modify,  or  refute  our  other  conclusions.  Despite 
Max  Miiller,  I  fancy  that  there  will  be  little  objection  to  the  opinion  that  this 
impression  confirms  the  belief  that  our  Consolatio  is  not  genuine. 

Assuming  our  Consolatio  to  be  a  forgery,  we  shall  be  able  to  explain  the 
reference  to  the  "fanum"  which  Cicero  proposed  to  build  to  the  memory 
of  TuUia.  Despite  the  enthusiasm  which  Cicero  felt  for  the  project,  there 
is  no  evidence  that  it  was  ever  carried  into  execution.  The  reader  of  the 
twelfth  book  of  the  letters  to  Atticus  would  naturally  assume,  if  he  depended 
entirely  on  that  source,  that  the  shrine  had  been  built.  Our  Consolatio 
seems  to  state  distinctly  that  the  shrine  had  been  constructed,  whereas 
letters  of  later  date  than  the  composition  of  the  Consolatio  show  that  Cicero 
was  still  in  doubt  as  to  the  best  means  of  carrying  out  his  plans.  The  lan- 
guage of  our  Consolatio  seems  to  demand  more  than  the  simple  determina- 
tion to  build  the  fane. 

To  sum  up:  The  impression  one  gets  from  the  reading  of  our  Conso- 
latio is  that  it  is  not  a  work  of  Cicero.  This  impression  receives  support, 
in  greater  or  less  degree,  from  various  kinds  of  evidence.  Among  the  most 
important  of  these  are  the  following:  The  text  tradition  of  our  Consolatio 
is  unsatisfactory  and  incomplete.    Waiving  the  internal  evidence,  external 


46  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

considerations  must  prove  that  the  author  of  our  Consolatio  imitated  the 
Tusculans,  and  not  the  opposite.  Neither  the  Latinity  nor  the  use  of  clausu- 
lae  can  be  regarded  as  Ciceronian.  Furthermore,  the  theory  of  spurious- 
ness  enables  us  to  explain  the  facts  more  easily  and  naturally  than  does  the 
theory  of  genuineness. 


CHAPTER  V 
CONJECTURES  AS  TO  THE  AUTHOR 

The  second  part  of  our  inquiry  is  now  in  order — the  attempt  to  discover, 
if  possible,  the  real  author,  or  at  least  the  era  in  which  he  lived.  It  should 
be  said  in  advance  that  the  prospects  for  reaching  a  satisfactory  conclusion 
on  this  point  are  few,  for  many  and  obvious  reasons.  All  I  shall  try  to 
do  here  is  to  present  the  evidence,  as  far  as  it  can  be  done,  and  not  attempt 
to  influence  the  reader's  decision.  The  principal  conjectures  are  five, 
as  follows:  (i)  The  author  was  Vianello;  (2)  The  author  was  Sigonius, 
or  someone  who  depended  on  Sigonius  for  information;  (3)  The  author 
was  Gasparino  Barzizza;  (4)  The  document  is  a  forgery,  but  ancient; 
(5)  The  document  is  a  forgery,  and  dates  from  the  Renaissance. 

The  first  theory  is  of  uncertain  origin.  As  the  easiest  to  dispose  of,  let 
us  consider  it  first.  It  is  true  that  Vianello  was  the  pubUsher  of  the  first 
edition,  that  he  displayed  a  singular  lack  of  partisan  enthusiasm  for  our 
Consolatio  that  is  unusual  for  a  man  of  his  time,  and  has  aroused  suspicions, 
and  that  he  failed  to  keep  his  promises  to  produce  the  MS.  Yet  this  "igno- 
biUs  Ubrarius"  was  hardly  the  man,  from  what  we  can  learn  of  him,  to 
undertake  and  carry  to  such  a  successful  conclusion  a  forgery  of  this  magni- 
tude. The  possibility  must  remain  that  Vianello  was  the  author,  yet  the 
theory  has  little  more  than  the  possibility  to  recommend  it. 

A  much  more  difficult  problem  meets  us  when  we  come  to  the  second 
proposition.  The  evidence  against  Sigonius  is  striking,  and  to  some  may 
seem  convincing,  even  though  we  would  regret  to  see  a  scholar  of  Sigonius' 
reputation  convicted  on  such  a  charge.  GuUelmus  seems  to  have  been  the 
first  to  suggest  that  Sigonius  was  implicated.  See  his  Assertio  adversus  C. 
Sigonium,  pp.  113  ff.,  and  above,  p.  8.  Certainly  no  scholar  of  his  genera- 
tion was  better  equipped  than  Sigonius.  His  study  of  the  fragments  had 
given  him  a  control  of  the  material  that  none  of  his  contemporaries  could 
claim.  The  task  of  forging  would  have  been  much  lighter  after  the  genuine 
fragments  had  been  pubUshed.  It  is  true  that  the  fragments  as  they  occur 
in  our  Consolatio  resemble  more  closely  those  of  Patricius  than  those  of 
Sigonius.  This  may  easily  be  explained.  The  collection  may  be  independ- 
ent. Sigonius  might  have  hit  upon  this  device  to  divert  suspicion.  In  that 
case,  the  fact  that  the  fragments  occur  in  the  Sigonian  order  might  be  due 
to  pride,  to  an  oversight,  or  to  intentional  ingenuousness. 

I  quoted  above,  p.  8,  some  letters  that  show  an  almost  personal  inter- 

47 


48  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

est  in  our  Consolatio  which  it  is  difi&cult  to  explain  on  any  other  theory  than 
this.  Schulz,  who  does  not  believe  that  Sigonius  is  the  author,  but  who 
desires  to  prove  an  existence  for  the  book  prior  to  1583,  quotes  from  a  letter 
of  Sigonius,  dated  November  12,  1582,  in  which  he  speaks  of  "un  mio  libro 
de  consolatione."  Tiraboschi  takes  this  to  be  a  confession,  and  such  surely 
would  be  the  first  inference.  It  is  questionable  whether  it  is  the  correct  one. 
All  the  letters  must  be  explained  together,  if  possible.  The  question  of  the 
actual  date  of  publication  here  becomes  of  some  importance.  Schulz  takes 
the  explanation  to  be  that  a  few  copies  had  been  sent  out  to  favored  individ- 
uals as  early  as  the  date  of  this  letter,  though  the  edition  proper  did  not 
appear  till  the  next  year.  As  he  believes  in  the  existence  of  a  MS,  his 
explanation  seems  not  altogether  necessary.  He  seems  to  have  overlooked 
the  considerations  I  adduced  above  (p.  7)  to  the  effect  that  the  actual  date 
of  publication  must  be  eariier  than  is  usually  beUeved,  or  at  least  the  date 
at  which  it  became  known  to  the  learned  world.  We  shall  have  to  go  back 
then  to  the  meaning  of  "mio."  Unquestionably  it  might  and  probably 
naturally  would  imply  more  than  a  purely  academic  interest.  My  tables 
of  clausulae  of  Sigonius  are  so  imperfect  that  I  hesitate  to  generalize.  My 
collections  reveal  a  mixture  of  quantitative  and  accentual  clausulae  with 
endings  that  are  impossible  from  either  standpoint,  the  rhythmical  clausules 
in  greater  numbers,  relatively,  than  in  our  Consolatio.  On  occasion,  how- 
ever, Sigonius  used  a  regular  accentual  clausule.  In  a  letter  to  H.  Steph- 
anus  (quoted  by  Krebs  Carl  Sigonius,  1840,  and  communicated  to  me  by 
Professor  Hendrickson)  we  find  such  clausulae  as  these :  tabulas  collegisti; 
potius  admiratus;  occasiongm  quaesiveris;  studium  delectaret;  MXX&rarum 
officium;  significas  provocaris;  valde  prohavi;  impulit  multo  magis;  pro- 
ficiscuntur;  potest  contingere,  etc.  My  own  lists  are  mainly  from  the  De 
dialogo  liber  and  the  Oratio  in  Gymnasia  Patavino  {Opera  VI.  3  fif.  and 
344  ff.,  ed.  1757),  and  reveal  no  such  regularity.^  Such  clausidae  as  are 
found  in  our  Consolatio  are,  then,  not  impossible  in  the  time  of  Sigonius, 
though  the  similarity  will  not  alone  prove  Sigonius  the  author.  Dismissing, 
with  Ellis,  and  despite  Farrer,  the  rumor  of  a  deathbed  confession,  which 
is  nothing  but  a  rumor,  we  still  have  what  must  be  confessed  to  be  a  strong 
suspicion.  Against  it  may  be  arrayed  some  general  considerations.  The 
general  character  and  standing  of  Sigonius  are  good.  I  have  no  desire 
to  repeat  the  eulogistic  characterizations  of  Schulz  and  Ellis.  Such  literary 
disputes  seem  to  have  been  quite  in  keeping  with  Sigonius'  character.  He 
had  already  indulged  in  a  debate  which  is  now  obscure,  but  evidently  at 
the  time  enjoyed  a  certain  notoriety,  with  Robortet.     See  a  letter  from 

I  For  additional  material  see  Appendix  B, 


CONJECTURES   AS   TO   AUTHOR  49 

Muretus  to  Gillot,  published  by  De  Nolhac  Correspondance,  etc.,  p.  149, 
n.  5;  cf.  Melanges  Graiix,  p.  400,  a  letter  rather  amusing  for  its  slighting 
reference  to  Riccoboni.  A  remark  by  De  Nolhac  is  worth  our  consideration 
(Correspondance,  etc.,  pp.  94  ff.):  "Sigonio,  qui  a  mesure  mieux  que  per- 
sonne  le  champ  de  la  science,  sait  trop  le  prix  de  temps  pour  s'abandonner 
aux  exercices  litteraires."  The  present  tendency  seems  away  from  the 
theory  of  a  Sigonian  authorship;  whether  rightly  or  no  is  a  question  I  do 
not  care  to  attempt  to  decide. 

Equally  difficult  to  defend  or  to  overthrow  is  the  theory  that  the  author 
was  Gasparino  Barzizza,  a  theory  propounded  by  Schulz  in  his  dissertation. 
Schulz  argues  ingeniously  in  defense  of  his  theory,  but  it  must  remain 
nothing  more  than  an  interesting  conjecture,  in  the  present  state  of  our 
knowledge.  As  Barzizza  does  not  enjoy  the  fame  he  deserves,  a  few  words 
regarding  him  may  not  be  out  of  place.  He  was  first  and  foremost  a  teacher, 
lecturing  in  Bergamo,  Pavia,  Venice,  Padua,  Ferrara,  and  finally  at  the 
court  of  the  visconti  at  Milan.  Certain  things  about  his  career  have  given 
rise  to  false  impressions  of  his  scholarship  and  methods,  impressions  which 
it  is  only  just  to  correct.  Schulz  (pp.  86  ff.)  argues  from  the  well-known 
Ciceronian  studies  of  Barzizza  that  he  was  the  author  of  our  Consolatio. 
It  is  true  that  he  stood  in  the  front  rank  of  the  Ciceronians  of  his  day. 
The  whole  story  of  Ciceronianism  remains  to  be  written,  though  some  prog- 
ress has  been  made.  Sabbadini  in  his  Storia  del  Ciceronianismo,  p.  13, 
says:  "Ma  il  vero  apostolo  del  Ciceronianismo  fu  il  Barzizza,  'cuius  ductu 
et  auspiciis,'  scrivea  Guarino  nel  1422,  'Cicero  amatur,  legitur,  et  per 
Italorum  gymnasia  summa  cum  gloria  volitat.'  "  Doubtless  some  allow- 
ance must  be  made  for  humanistic  exaggeration,  but  it  is  clear  that  a  sub- 
stantial residue  of  truth  remains.  It  was  natural  enough  that  Gasparino 
should  have  been  interested  in  the  still  fragmentary  rhetorical  works  of 
Cicero,  yet  it  is  this  very  interest  that  has  been  in  part  responsible  for  this 
charge  of  forgery.  How  far,  if  at  all,  he  influenced  the  texts  of  Quintilian 
and  Cicero  it  is  difficult  to  make  out,  yet  what  we  know  of  his  methods  of 
study  does  not  lead  us  to  believe  that  he  is  responsible  for  serious  corruption. 
The  source  of  this  misapprehension  seems  to  be  a  statement  by  Flavio 
Biondo  Italia  Illustrata,  p.  346,  also  quoted  by  Furietti  Barz.  0pp.,  p.  xli, 
and  by  Schulz,  p.  86.  Referring  to  the  discovery  of  a  MS  of  the  rhetorical 
works  by  Landriani  in  1422,  he  writes:  "unde  liberatus  est  bonus  ipse  vir 
Gasparinus  ingenti,  quern  assumpserat,  labore  supplendi,  quoad  poterat, 
librorum  de  Oratore  defectus."  We  are  fortunate  enough  to  know  a  good 
deal  about  Gasparino's  methods  of  work  on  such  problems.  See  Sabbadini 
Studi  di  G.  B.  sii  Quintiliano  e  Cicerone,  p.  10,  and  a  MS  note  quoted  in 


50  THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

Bandini  Cat.  Cod.  Laur.  II.  492,  493;  499-501 :  "Hoc  supplet  Gasparinus, 
non  tamen,  ut  proprio  ex  ore  audivi,  ea  intentione  ut  textui  annecteretur, 
sed  ut  esset  quaedam  postilla  in  margine  quae  utrosque  textus  defec- 
tuosos  coniungeret  et  cum  aliqua  continuatione  et  consonantia  saltern  intel- 
lectui  legentis  satisfaceret  aliquantisper."  Cf.  also  a  letter  from  Barzizza 
to  loh.  Cornelius,  quoted  from  Cod.  Rice.  779,  f.  148,  by  Sabbadini  Studi, 
etc.,  p.  II :  "Quaedam  etiam  cum  deficerent  supplevi,  non  ut  {om.  cod.)  in 
versum  cum  textu  Ciceronis  ponerentur,  esset  enim  vehementer  temerarium 
nee  ab  homine  docto  ferendum,  sed  ut  ea  in  margine  posita  comment ariorum 
locum  tenerent."  In  the  face  of  such  testimony  it  seems  difi&cult  to  convict 
Gasparino  of  any  design  of  forgery.  The  parallel  is  of  course  not  perfect, 
but  the  almost  modern  conception  of  a  scholar's  responsibilities  and  obliga- 
tions is  certainly  to  be  put  down  to  his  credit.  Another  argument  on  which 
Schulz  relies  is  that  Gasparino  wrote  "Epistulae  ad  exercitationem  accom- 
modatae."  These  letters,  of  which  we  have  a  considerable  number,  are  what 
their  name  implies,  exercises  in  Latin  composition,  cast  in  epistolary  form, 
dealing  with  a  variety  of  subjects.  They  would  naturally  form  part  of  a 
teacher's  equipment.  The  only  argument  that  can  safely  be  drawn  from 
these  is  the  habit  of  practicing  Ciceronian  Latin,  for  neither  in  length  nor 
in  content  is  there  any  resemblance  to  our  Consolatio.  All  are  short.  Sab- 
badini Ciceronianisnio,  p.  16,  says  of  them:  "Qui  difficilmente  si  incontra 
una  parola,  una  frase  non  ciceroniana;  non  e  sempre  ciceroniano  il  sapore, 
assai  di  rado  ciceroniano  il  movimento,  perche  lettere  di  argomento  simu- 
lato;  ma  nell'  insieme  vi  e  una  correttezza,  una  scrupolosita,  di  cui  prima 
del  Barzizza  non  si  hanno  esempi,  e  ben  pochi  dopo  di  lui,  finche  non  si 
arriva  a  Paolo  Cortesi" — a  characterization,  by  the  way,  hardly  applicable 
to  our  Consolatio.  Schulz's  other  arguments  are  based  mainly  on  the 
similarity  of  language  in  our  Consolatio  and  Barzizza.  It  is  however  to 
be  noted  that  the  majority  of  instances  of  this  kind  belong  in  the  general 
consolatory  field,  and  so  are  imperfect  evidence.  It  must  be  admitted, 
too,  that  while  Barzizza  was  a  Ciceronian,  he  was  not  in  the  sense  that  the 
author  of  our  Consolatio  was  a  Ciceronian,  an  author  who  did  not  scruple 
to  quote  with  astonishing  freedom  anything  which  suited  his  purpose.  In 
the  numerous  consolatory  letters  and  funeral  orations  of  Barzizza  there  is 
little  evidence  that  he  was  acquainted  with  the  ancient  literature  of  these 
types,  though  we  know  from  his  own  lips  that  he  was  (see  below,  p.  61). 
They  are  far  less  formal,  rhetorically,  than  those  of  Poggio,  for  instance. 
The  style  of  Barzizza  is  rather  that  of  a  man  who  was  well  acquainted  with 
Cicero  than  of  one  who  borrows  outright  and  shamelessly.  For  a  general 
judgment  on  his  style,  see  Sabbadini  Ciceronianismo,  p.  15.      We  may 


CONJECTURES   AS   TO   AUTHOR  5I 

find  some  evidence  by  inquiring  into  Barzizza's  character  and  reputation  a 
little  more  at  length.  The  whole  weight  of  this  testimony  falls  on  the  side 
of  his  innocence.  Something  of  his  fame  among  his  contemporaries  we 
can  deduce  from  what  has  been  already  said.  His  scholarly  reputation 
was  deservedly  good,  his  private  life  praiseworthy.  If  any  pecuniary  advan- 
tage was  to  be  gained  by  such  a  composition,  it  might  be  attributed  with 
some  plausibility  to  that  period  of  financial  depression  in  the  scholar's 
life  before  he  was  received  into  the  favor  of  the  Milanese  visconti.  It  is 
hard  to  see  what  financial  benefits  could  have  accrued.  A  pretended  dis- 
covery by  him  would  hardly  have  escaped  some  record,  in  a  time  when  there 
was  so  much  enthusiasm  for  new  MSS.  In  the  same  connection  it  may  be 
noted  that  his  reputation  brought  to  him  the  credit  for  discoveries  he  did 
not  make;  e.  g.,  the  discovery  of  Cicero's  rhetorical  works  was  attributed 
to  him  by  Raphael  Volaterranus  Comment  urb.  xxi.  489  (ed.  Basil,  1559), 
and  others.  He  shared  in  the  neglect  which  his  generation  received  from 
their  successors.  With  the  advent  of  a  generation  of  editors  like  Pomponius 
Laetus,  the  discoverers  went  into  temporary  obscurity.  Barzizza,  however, 
fared  better  than  did  some  others,  as  Poggio.  The  former's  reputation 
grew  by  accretion,  while  the  fame  of  Poggio's  discoveries,  which  had  been 
the  sensation  of  the  learned  world,  had  so  diminished  that  Sabellicus  (Dia- 
logus  de  reparatione  Latinae  linguae,  0pp.,  pp.  190  S.,  ed.  1502)  was  not 
sure  whether  Quintilian  was  discovered  by  Poggio  or  by  Barzizza.  Among 
the  works  of  Poggio,  the  Letters  and  Orations  were  known  to  Sabellicus 
by  name  only,  the  Facetiae  alone  were  known  to  him  at  first  hand,  inciden- 
tally a  sad  commentary  on  the  moral  standards  of  the  age.  Barzizza's 
commentaries  also  were  believed  by  Sabellicus  to  have  perished.  The 
Dialogus  is  undated,  but  probably  belongs  to  the  last  quarter  of  the  fifteenth 
century. 

We  saw  a  specimen  of  Barzizza's  ideals  as  a  scholar  in  his  methods  of 
supplying  lacunae;  his  attitude  toward  the  mihi-michi  controversy  indi- 
cates his  scholarship.  The  majority  of  scholars  of  the  early  fifteenth  cen- 
tury, led  by  Lionardo  Bruno,  favored  the  spelling  michi.  Bruno  argues 
with  some  display  of  erudition  for  this  spelling,  but  relies  mainly  on  the 
fact  that  Petrarch  and  Coluccio  spelled  that  way.  Gasparino  stood  out 
against  this  spelling,  in  favor  of  mihi.  See  also  Sabbadini  Oiceronianismo, 
pp.  99  £f.  A  further  instance  of  his  scholarship  may  be  seen  in  his  pioneer 
studies  of  metrical  claustdae.  The  introduction  of  the  study  of  claiisidae 
into  modern  teaching  is  sometimes  attributed  to  Lorenzo  Valla,  but  errone- 
ously. This  attribution  may  be  found,  for  example,  in  Raphael  Volater- 
ranus op.  cit.,  p.  490:    "Laurentius  Valla  primus  fere  nostro  saccule  qui 


52  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

orationem  Latinam  nulla  observatione  fluentem  in  compedes  quasi  rede- 
gerit  ac  in  nervos  observationis  antiquae  constrinxit."  But  see  Barzizza's 
De  compositione,  0pp.,  p.  ii.  Here  we  find  a  theoretical  exposition  of 
the  clausule,  with  later  a  practical  demonstration  of  its  use,  based  on  Mar- 
tianus  Capella,  whose  account,  he  says,  is  clearer  than  those  of  Cicero  and 
Quintilian.  Cicero's  actual  usage,  he  says,  is  the  best  guide.  It  would 
seem  then  that  to  Barzizza  belongs  the  credit  for  initial  studies  in  this  field. 
Schulz  introduces  some  very  ingenious  arguments  to  support  his  theory, 
but  the  burden  of  proof  must  rest  with  him,  nor  to  my  mind,  has  he  suc- 
ceeded in  making  out  a  case.  Scharfif  thought  some  author  of  the  end  of 
the  fifteenth  century  was  responsible,  but  was  unwilling  to  go  farther,  and 
no  one  has  been  so  daring  in  the  case  of  the  other  documents  attributed  to 
the  Renaissance.  Schulz  calls  attention  to  the  statement  of  Tiraboschi 
Storia  delta  Letteratura  Italiana  I,  p.  315,  note,  that  a  MS  of  our  Consolatio 
was  sent  to  him  for  examination  by  a  certain  Beltramelli  of  Bergamo.  Tira- 
boschi thinks  that  this  MS  was  forged  by  some  partisan  of  Sigonius  to  give 
a  firmer  foundation  to  his  defense,  but  declares  the  MS  to  show  manifest 
signs  of  being  a  forgery,  being  provided  with  lacunae  and  other  signs  of 
age.  This  theory  of  Tiraboschi's  is  refuted  by  Schulz,  who  apparently 
without  knowing  that  Sigonius  asserted  the  existence  of  a  MS  declared 
that  any  MS,  fragmentary  or  otherwise,  would  have  been  welcomed  by 
Sigonius,  had  he  known  of  its  existence.  Certainly  we  should  have  expected 
a  higher  degree  of  candor  on  the  part  of  Sigonius,  had  he  known  of  this  AIS. 
There  is  of  course  nothing  essentially  impossible,  or  even  improbable,  in 
the  supposition  that  this  is  the  three-hundred-year-old  MS  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made.  Paleographical  references  of  this  period  are  notori- 
ously inexact,  and  Tiraboschi  is  perhaps  not  infallible  on  such  points. 
This  MS,  according  to  Schulz,  p.  97,  was  written  by  some  friend  of 
Barzizza's,  and  is  another  copy  of  the  same  MS  that  was  published  by 
Vianello.  Being  incomplete,  it  escaped  detection  until  it  came  into  the 
hands  of  Beltramelli.  His  argumentation  is  far  from  lucid.  An  incom- 
plete MS  is  as  liable  to  discovery  as  a  perfect  one,  and  the  existence  of  the 
MS  at  Bergamo  in  the  library  of  Beltramelli,  who  was  an  enthusiastic 
collector  of  MSS  and  rare  books,  would  by  no  means  prove  that  it  had  ever 
been  in  Bergamo  before.  The  discrepancy  in  age,  in  case  this  was  the  MS 
claimed  by  Vianello  to  exist,  did  not  concern  Schulz,  and  need  not  us. 
There  seems  little  real  evidence  to  connect  this  MS  with  either  Sigonius 
or  Barzizza.  Given  a  MS,  and  it  would  seem  that  we  were  far  on  the  way 
toward  a  solution  of  our  difficulties.  But  such  is  not  the  case.  The  library 
of  Beltramelli  has  been  dispersed,  and  so  far  it  has  proved  impossible  to 


CONJECTURES   AS   TO   AUTHOR  53 

locate  the  MS  in  question.  Part  of  the  collection  went  to  the  Capitular 
Library  of  Bergamo,  part,  it  appears,  to  the  Biblioteca  Trivulziana  in  Milan. 
The  recently  completed  catalogue  of  the  latter  library,  consulted  for  me  by 
Dr.  B.  L.  UUman,  makes  no  mention  of  such  a  MS  as  ours.  I  have  been 
no  more  successful  in  the  Capitular  Library. 

The  Venice  MS  of  the  Consolatio  (Lat.  VI.  1 1 )  may  be  this  Beltramelli 
MS.  It  presents  an  interesting  and  difficult  problem.  No  evidence,  from 
the  style  or  from  the  content,  has  so  far  revealed  its  true  character.  It 
fits  vi^ell  enough  the  rather  vague  description  of  Tiraboschi,  as  it  breaks 
ofif  abruptly  (if  my  photographs  are  complete)  at  the  end  of  a  recto  page  (14), 
and  from  9''  to  the  end,  lacunae,  some  with  and  some  without  erasure,  are 
frequent.  In  some  places  erasures  have  certainly  been  made  and  it  is 
possible  to  read  the  original,  e.  g.,  on  145,  where  eftaltes  has  been  erased. 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  this  passage  efraltes  does  not  occupy  the  position 
in  the  list  of  names  assigned  to  it  in  the  editions.  In  other  cases  there  are 
apparent  erasures,  though  the  underlying  reading  cannot  be  made  out. 
In  some  of  these  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  original  was  not  the  reading  of  the 
editions.  In  other  cases  spaces  are  left,  in  which  nothing  has  been  written. 
To  judge  from  the  photographs,  these  are  not  the  losses  which  result  from 
age.  Furthermore,  why  should  the  first  quaternion  have  been  spared? 
The  fact  that  the  MS  breaks  off  at  the  end  of  a  recto  page  proves  that  the 
absence  of  the  greater  part  of  the  text  is  due  to  non-completion,  and  not  to 
accident.  This  MS  could  not  then  have  been  the  MS  of  Vianello.  Its 
relation  to  that  MS  cannot  even  be  conjectured.  Some  readings  suggest 
a  difference  in  tradition,  e.  g.,  ex  servata  civium  salute  (14),  summos  et 
infimos  (22),  illud  Menadri  {sic)  canticum  (61),  etc.,  the  editions  reading 
ex  parta  civium  salute,  summum  et  infimum,  illud  comicum,  etc.  In  most 
respects  it  agrees  closely  with  the  editions.  There  are  gaps  in  the  external 
history  of  the  MS.  The  Marcian  library  received  it  from  Morelli,  a 
former  librarian,  who  had  it  as  a  gift  from  an  Englishman,  Edwards.  Its 
earlier  history  I  have  not  been  able  to  learn,  but  Valentinelli  in  his  catalogue 
of  the  Venice  MSS  regarded  it  as  Beltramelli's  MS,  though  assigning 
it  to  the  eighteenth  century.  If  it  really  was  his  MS  there  remains  nothing 
certain  to  connect  it  with  either  Sigonius  or  Barzizza,  and  if  this  date 
is  correct,  a  connection  with  either  of  these  men  is  impossible.  The  hand, 
which  Valentinelli  pronounced  an  imitation  of  the  fourteenth-century  style, 
is  of  so  peculiar  a  character,  and  presents  such  different  forms  of  individual 
letters  within  a  few  lines  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  form  an  opinion.  It  is 
tempting,  however,  to  accept  Valentinelli's  statement,  with  perhaps  a 
mental  reservation  with  regard  to  the  date.     The  conjecture  that  it  imitates 


54  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

a  fourteenth-century  style  has  some  merit,  though  there  is  no  one  style, 
to  my  knowledge,  comparable  to  this.  Its  composite  character  bears 
some  testimony  to  its  lateness.  We  cannot,  therefore,  identify  with  cer- 
tainty this  MS  with  that  seen  by  Tiraboschi,  nor  can  we  regard  it  as  evi- 
dence against  either  Sigonius  or  Barzizza.  Very  probably  it  comes  from  a 
time  later  than  either  of  them. 

The  material  at  hand  for  the  study  of  Barzizza's  use  of  clausulae  is 
insufficient.^  Rhythmical  clausulae  seem,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  to  pre- 
vail, as  one  would  expect  from  the  time  in  which  he  lived.  Despite  the 
assumption  of  the  humanists  that  Latin  was  their  native  tongue,  it  is  hard 
to  believe  that  the  use  of  clausules  by  them  was  not  conscious,  whatever 
it  may  have  been  with  Cicero.  Especially  in  the  case  of  Barzizza,  who 
said  that  the  method  of  use  of  clausulae  should  depend  on  circumstances, 
the  fact  of  the  non-use  or  use  of  clausules  in  the  passages  we  should  happen  to 
pick  in  any  accidental  way  would  have  little  real  bearing.  Schulz  jauntily 
proclaims  that  nothing  can  be  urged  against  his  theory,  but  equally  plausible 
arguments  could  doubtless  be  devised,  with  a  little  ingenuity,  to  attribute 
the  forgery  to  other  scholars  of  the  Renaissance. 

Let  us  now  take  up  the  theory  proposed  by  Ellis,  that  our  Consolatio 
has  come  down  from  antiquity,  and  that  it  was  used  as  the  genuine  by 
Hieronymus  and  Lactantius.  This  theory  has  much  to  recommend  it. 
Ellis'  brief  article  (CI.  Rev.  VII.  197)  by  no  means  exhausts  the  possibilities 
of  argument.  He  regards  the  style  as  too  classical  to  have  been  possible 
in  Sigonius'  time,  or  in  the  Renaissance  (he  does  not  refer  to  Schulz's  con- 
jecture), and  particularly  before  1432.  He  regards  this  date  as  significant 
because  in  that  year  Ambrogio  Traversari,  general  of  the  monastic  order 
of  the  Camaldolese,  discovered  at  Perugia  a  "Consolatio  Ignoti  Auctoris" 
{Hodoeporicon,  p.  11).  Ellis  believes  that  this  is  our  Consolatio,  and  if  so, 
it  must  be  ancient.  The  resemblance  is  surely  striking,  yet  we  are  hardly 
justified  in  identifying  them  on  such  slight  authority.  No  further  reference 
to  the  MS  is  made  by  Traversari.  It  is  inconceivable  that  a  document 
purporting  to  be  Ciceronian  would  have  been  passed  over  without  mention 
of  that  fact,  especially  as  he  stops  to  characterize  it  briefly.  The  age  as  a 
whole  was  not  critical,  though  the  De  differentiis  was  recognized  by  Coluccio 
as  a  forgery.  Yet  the  contrast  between  the  title  and  the  pretensions  of 
the  work  would  surely  have  struck  Traversari.  It  would  be  in  many  ways 
desirable  to  identify  the  two.  Sigonius'  name  would  be  at  once  freed  from 
possible  taint.  Barzizza,  who  died  in  1431,  might  have  been  the  author 
of  the  Traversari  Consolatio,  an  argument  of  which  Schulz  does  not  avail 

■  See  Appendix  B. 


CONJECTURES   AS   TO   AUTHOR  55 

himself.  Given  a  MS  of  the  sixteenth  century  (Tiraboschi)  or  of  the  fif- 
teenth (Schulz),  and  a  possible  one  in  the  fifteenth  (the  Traversari  MS), 
with  the  assertion  of  the  existence  of  a  MS  by  Vianello  and  Sigonius,  it  is 
tempting  to  identify  them.  I  know  of  nothing  else  with  which  this  MS  of 
Traversari  could  be  identified.  The  Venice  MS  can  hardly  have  been 
Traversari's.  On  the  other  hand,  the  reasons  for  this  identification  are  not 
strong.  Arguments  from  silence  are  rarely  convincing.  Supposing  that 
our  Consolatio  were  the  one  discovered  by  Traversari,  a  chain  would  be 
established  which  would  support  Ellis'  view.  The  age  of  the  possible 
Vianellan  MS  may  be  left  out  of  account.  But  the  identity  of  the 
Traversari  MS  with  that  of  Vianello  is  not  necessary  to  the  theory, 
though  it  would  be  confirmatory.  The  language  of  our  Consolatio  might 
perfectly  well  belong  to  the  first  or  second  century  a.  d.  (I  should  hesitate 
to  say  that  it  necessarily  belonged  then).  One  possibility  that  must  be 
taken  into  account  is  that  our  Consolatio,  while  not  genuine,  used  the  real 
Consolatio  as  a  source.  In  that  case,  fragments  would  still  be  authentic, 
so  far  as  they  are  confirmed  by  other  sources.  In  case  this  is  not  true,  our 
whole  collection  of  fragments,  save  those  in  the  Tusculans,  is  brought  into 
question.  Can  we  decide  whether  or  no  Lactantius  and  Hieronymus  used 
this  Consolatio  ?  There  is  some  evidence  in  both  cases  that  they  did  not. 
The  use  of  the  Silenus  story  in  our  Consolatio  does  not  quite  agree  with 
what  Lactantius  demands  (cf.  above,  p.  27);  the  summary  grouping  of 
exempla  in  Cons.  102  seems  suggested  by  Hieronymus  rather  than  vice  versa 
(p.  32,  above).  I  pointed  out  that  this  Consolatio  could  not  be  the  only 
source  for  Valerius  Maximus,  and  therefore  need  not  be  regarded  as  a 
source  at  all.  Yet  the  early  centuries  of  the  Empire  would  seem  a  suitable 
time  for  the  composition  of  such  an  essay.  This  would  agree  with  the  well- 
known  practice  of  the  rhetorical  schools.  In  case  the  author  did  not  depend 
on  the  real  Consolatio  for  the  material,  could  we  date  our  Consolatio  more 
exactly  on  this  theory  ?  The  mass  of  evidence  in  Pliny  is  so  slight  that  it 
can  hardly  be  taken  seriously.  I  refer  to  the  quotation  "  Crantorem  sequor," 
which  might  have  been  transmitted  independently.  While  the  letters  to 
Atticus  cannot  furnish  all  the  information  given  in  our  Consolatio  about 
Caepio,  Crassus,  and  the  others,  it  is  probable  that  their  insertion  in  our 
Consolatio  is  due  to  this  suggestion.  The  composition  of  our  Consolatio 
would  then  probably  have  to  be  set  later  than  the  date  of  the  publication 
of  the  letters  to  Atticus. 

Some  light  may  be  thrown  upon  this  theory,  and  the  last  as  well,  by  an 
inquiry  into  the  knowledge  of  the  Consolatio  in  the  Renaissance.  Petrarch 
had  sought  long  but  unsuccessfully  for  it:   cf.  his  letter  to  Cicero,  De  reb. 


56  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

Jam.  xxiv.  4:  "tuorum  \sc.  librorum]  sane,  quia  de  iis  sermo  mihi  nunc 
erat,  quorum  insignior  iactura  est,  haec  sunt  nomina:  ReipuUicae,  Rei 
familiaris,  De  lande  philosophiae,  De  consolatione,  De  gloria,"  etc.  It  is 
of  course  possible,  but  not  probable,  that  he  knew  this  Consolatio.  The 
only  evidence  for  this  is  the  uncertain  manner  of  the  use  of  ohduruisse  and 
occaluisse  (above,  p.  36).  The  researches  of  the  next  generation,  Poggio 
and  his  untiring  coworkers,  were  no  more  successful,  so  far  as  we  know. 
The  discovery  of  Traversari  can  hardly  be  considered.  Various  scholars 
do  display  a  knowledge  of  the  Consolatio.  Among  these  is  Lionardo  Bruno. 
I  quote  from  his  Cicero  Novus,  preserved,  e.  g.,  in  Cod.  Laur.  LII.  i : 
"Scripsit  ...  .  de  senectute,  de  amicitia,  de  consolatione  libros  singulos. 
....  Nee  multo  post  summo  ipsum  dolore  affecit  TuUiolae  mors  quam 

partu  laborantem  per  id  tempus  amisit Pro  linimento  huius  doloris 

scriptus  est  ab  eo  liber  in  quo  se  ipsum  consolatus  est."  It  is  impossible 
to  judge  from  such  statements  whether  Bruno  had  a  first-hand  knowledge 
of  this  or  any  other  Consolatio.  The  same  is  true  of  Manetti  Dialogus 
consolatorius  de  ohitu  filii.  The  most  striking  of  all  is  the  section  of 
Sicco  Polento  which  deals  with  Cicero.  For  this  I  am  indebted  to  Dr. 
B.  L.  Ullman,  to  a  forthcoming  paper  by  whom  I  would  refer  the  reader. 
Sicco  viTrites  as  follows:  "Hos  quoque  per  dies  ut  scriberet  de  consolatione 
Tulliolae  mors  coegit.  Tum  quidem  ut  doloris  magnitudinem  medicina 
aliqua  mitigaret,  librum  edidit  unum,  qui  de  consolatione  inscriptus  est," 
etc.  He  continues  with  a  comment  on  and  analysis  of  the  Tusculans. 
Now  it  is  Sicco's  method  in  the  De  viris  illustribus  to  weave  into  his  charac- 
terization a  quotation  or  paraphrase,  often  from  the  beginning  of  the  work 
under  discussion.  This  is  true  of  Catullus,  for  example:  "Id  lepide  scribit 
ad  Cornelium  suum,  qui  nugas  eius  aliquid  esse  putare  soleret"  (cf.  CatuU. 
i.  3-4).  This  and  similar  quotations  will  be  discussed  in  the  paper  just 
referred  to.  The  medicina  here  might  be  such  a  quotation.  Yet  the  idea 
of  medicine  for  grief  is  so  common  in  consolations  in  Cicero  and  elsewhere 
that  it  is  not  quite  safe  to  draw  conclusions.  Sicco  was  writing  about 
1430-33,  and  so  would  fit  in  with  either  the  Traversari  discovery  or  the 
theory  that  the  author  was  Barzizza.  However,  it  is  almost  certain  that 
the  genuine  Consolatio  was  not  known  to  be  extant  in  1441.  About  this 
time  an  important  discovery  of  MSS  was  made  at  Altobassis.  Poggio  had 
by  this  time  retired  from  active  service  in  the  collection  of  MSS  to  engage 
in  literary  composition,  but  this  discovery  aroused  all  his  old  enthusiasm. 
He  wrote  at  once  for  an  inventory.  Among  the  lost  works  of  Cicero  that 
he  hopes  to  find  is  the  Consolatio  {Epistt.  VIII.  24  Tonelli).  It  is  diflttcult 
to  believe  that  a  discovery  of  a  Consolatio  of  Cicero  in  earlier  years  could 


CONJECTURES   AS   TO   AUTHOR  57 

have  remained  unknown  to  Poggio.  Poggio  was  in  close  communications 
with  Traversari,  the  only  scholar  who  can  be  identified  with  the  finding 
of  a  Consolatio.  It  seems  almost  certain  that  the  genuine  Consolatio  was 
not  known  in  the  early  Renaissance.  Was  our  Consolatio  known  and 
regarded  as  spurious  ?  It  is  impossible  to  answer.  It  seems  strange  that 
in  the  correspondence  of  the  time  there  should  be  no  reference  to  any  con- 
troversy. Possibly  the  large  body  of  unpublished  letters  contains  the  whole 
story.  Yet  to  my  mind,  the  document  belongs  to  the  Renaissance.  lean- 
not  agree  with  Ellis  when  he  says  that  the  style  is  too  classical  to  have  been 
possible  in  the  Renaissance.  A  scholar  of  that  period,  imperfectly  trained 
and  supplied  with  apparatus,  would  in  my  opinion  have  composed  Latin 
very  like  this.  The  presence  of  accentual  clausulae  would  indicate  a  time 
when  they  knew  that  a  quantitative  clausule  existed,  but  were  not  well 
acquainted  with  its  use.  The  danger  of  arguing  from  silence  is  well  seen 
in  the  case  of  Catullus,  to  whom  really  significant  references  in  the  Renais- 
sance are  rare.  The  reference  in  Sicco  looks  very  like,  and  may  well  be, 
a  real  reference.  In  the  absence  of  confirmatory  evidence  it  is  hard  to  be 
sure. 

The  fondness  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries  for  forging  inscrip- 
tions and  literary  documents  is  well  known.  I  need  only  mention  the  name 
of  Ligorio  on  the  epigraphical  side.  Ciriacus  of  Ancona  has  had  a  bad 
reputation  (probably  largely  undeserved)  as  a  forger.  Annius  of  Viterbo 
published  in  1498  seventeen  books  of  histories,  said  to  be  those  of  Fabius 
Pictor  and  others.  Even  Muretus  was  charged  with  forging  a  fragment 
of  Pacuvius  (cf.  Ellis  Commentary  on  Catullus,  2d.  ed.,  pp.  66,  67).  Madvig 
thought  he  discerned  Renaissance  influence  on  the  De  orthographia  of 
Apuleius  {Opusc.  I).  In  general,  see  Symonds  Revival  of  Learning,  p.  156, 
n.  2,  and  the  reference  to  Tiraboschi  there  cited.  Most  interesting  of  all 
for  our  purpose  is  the  forged  epitaph  of  Tullia  {CIL.  VI.  5,  3593*).  While 
it  is  not  justifiable  on  such  slight  evidence  to  assert  a  connection,  nothing 
could  show  with  greater  clearness  Renaissance  interest  in  such  subjects 
as  the  death  of  Tullia  than  this  inscription. 

Scharff's  view,  that  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century  was  the  date  of  our 
Consolatio,  must  be  accounted  a  strong  possibility.  I  cannot  attempt  to 
conjecture  the  individual.  I  am  acquainted  with  no  scholar  of  the  period 
who  combined  the  necessary  qualifications,  in  scholarship  and  character, 
though  forgery  was  not  so  serious  a  crime  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  then  as 
now.  Despite  this,  the  most  reasonable  theory  is  that  this  Consolatio  is 
the  work  of  an  unknown  scholar  of  the  Renaissance. 


APPENDIX  A 

CONSOLATIONS  AND  LAUDATIONS  IN  THE  RENAISSANCE 

It  would  be  impossible  at  this  time  to  relate  in  full  the  history  of  the 
Renaissance  literature  of  these  types;  in  fact,  a  separate  treatise  might  be 
written  on  this  subject.  To  form  an  impression  of  the  number  of  examples 
of  these  literary  types  one  need  only  glance  through  the  indices  of  such  a 
collection  as  Muratori's  Scriptores  rerum  Italicarwn,  or  through  any  cata- 
logue of  MSS.  I  shall  confine  my  attention  to  a  few  of  the  most  interesting 
specimens,  for  the  present,  reserving  the  consideration  of  a  wider  range  of 
examples  for  a  later  paper.  Practically  all  the  notable  scholars  and  public 
men  of  the  Renaissance  composed  laudations  and  consolations.  I  shall 
confine  my  examples  in  general  to  Poggio,  Manetti,  and  Barzizza,  the  choice 
being  dictated  by  especial  interest  in  the  form  of  the  work,  or  in  the  author. 

Space  does  not  permit  the  complete  reproduction  of  these  specimens, 
many  of  which  are  almost  inaccessible  to  American  scholars.  Among  the 
most  conspicuous  figures  of  the  Renaissance  are  Poggio,  the  collector  of 
MSS,  and  his  friend,  Niccolo  Niccoli,  text  critic,  and,  one  might  almost  say, 
editor.  The  latter  died  in  1437,  and  Poggio  wrote  the  funeral  oration.  This 
may  be  found  complete  in  Poggio's  works,  or,  summarized  and  translated, 
in  Shepherd  Life  of  Poggio,  pp.  299  ff.  The  contents  of  the  oration  are  in 
brief  as  follows:  The  Muses,  if  such  an  act  were  consistent  with  their 
dignity,  would  have  come  down  to  praise  this  man.  My  effort  is  only  to 
point  the  way  for  some  more  eloquent  orator,  and  to  perform  the  service  due 
a  friend.  After  a  petitio  veniae  in  familiar  form,  with  more  biographical 
material  than  an  ancient  would  have  admitted,  but  formally  presented, 
the  oration  proper  begins:  his  birth,  and  eulogy  of  his  parents;  his  studies 
under  Marsilius,  his  industry  and  attainments  in  scholarship,  and  his 
generosity.  His  house  was  a  veritable  public  library.  He  was  active  in 
bringing  new  teachers  to  Florence.  Here  occurs  an  interesting  and  charac- 
teristic passage.  Poggio  had  had  a  violent  quarrel  with  Francesco  Filelfo, 
who  was  one  of  the  teachers  summoned  to  Florence  by  Niccolo.  The 
author  interrupts  his  narrative  for  a  thrust  at  Filelfo,  but  with  an  apology 
for  Niccolo:  " Turn  ultimus  omnium  Nicolai  quoque  opera  ad  nos  adiit 
vir  scelestissimus  omnium  atque  impurissimus  (quem  contumeliae  causa 
nomino)  Franciscus  Philelphus.  Verum  Nicolaus,  qui  scientiae  utilitatem 
quaereret,  flagitia  ignoraret,  communi  errore  bonorum,  qui  ceteros  ex  suo 
ingenio    iudicant,  ....  deceptus,"    etc.     He   continues   with    Niccolo's 

59 


6o  THE  PSEUDO-CICERONIAN  CONSOLATIO 

prudentia,  humanitas,  gravifas,  castitas,  etc.  Looking  forward  to  being 
of  service  in  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  he  arranged  at  his  death  to  found  a 
public  library.  He  concludes  with  an  apostrophe  to  his  friend,  an  appeal 
to  the  audience,  and  a  promise  to  keep  alive  his  memory.  The  resemblance 
to  the  rhetorical  fashions  of  the  ancients  is  sufficiently  evident.  Of  par- 
ticular interest  would  be  a  detailed  comparison  with  Bruno's  invective 
against  Niccolo,  which  Poggio  answers,  almost  detail  for  detail.  See 
Wotke  Wiener  Studien  XI.  295  ff.  Syncrises  are  frequent.  Notable  for  its 
rhetorical  form  is  Poggio's  oration  for  Lorenzo  de  Medici  {0pp.,  pp.  278  ff., 
ed.  Basil). 

The  remainder  of  the  half-dozen  orations  of  Poggio  we  may  pass  over 
more  briefly.  The  treatment  of  virtues  is  the  same  throughout.  Truly 
encomiastic  in  its  spirit  is  the  use  of  the  same  characteristic  in  opposite 
ways:  Franciscus,  Cardinal  of  Florence,  is  praised  (Op p.,  p.  252)  for  his 
study  of  law,  while  the  Cardinal  of  S.  Croce  gave  up  the  law  for  the  church. 
In  the  former  case,  law  is  the  most  useful  study,  in  the  latter,  "huius  mundi 
sapientia"  is  "apud  Deum  stultitia."  The  oration  for  L.  Bruno  was 
"dignified,  lucid,  pathetic,  well-proportioned"  (Shepherd  op.  cit.,  p.  375). 
This  was  not  delivered,  but  was  written  at  the  request  of  friends  to  replace 
the  miserable  production  of  Manetti,  the  ofiicial  orator.  This  oration  of 
Manetti  is  summarized  in  Shepherd  op.  cit.,  p.  371,  note,  and  for  puerility 
surpasses  anything  of  the  kind  known  to  me.  A  few  quotations  will  suffice. 
"If  the  Muses  were  in  the  habit  of  appearing  in  public,  they  would  have 
wept  for  this  man,  in  Latin  or  in  Greek,  but  as  they  are  not,  I,  whose  only 
recommendation  is  that  I  am  a  member  of  the  government,  have 
been  selected  to  deliver  the  laudatio,  and  to  crown  the  corpse."  The 
treatment  professes  to  be  orderly,  but  its  symmetry  is  much  marred  by 
digressions.  Cicero,  who  translated  from  the  Greek,  and  Livy,  who  wrote 
history,  are  both  inferior  to  this  man,  who  did  each  of  these  things.  Pre- 
paring for  the  coronation,  he  relates  in  great  detail,  through  several  pages, 
the  entire  history  of  the  subject,  describing  the  eight  kinds  of  military 
crowns,  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  awarded,  etc.  Having 
proved  Bruno  a  poet  by  the  amusing  rule,  "Itaque  si  quis  poeta  esse  cuperet, 
quaedam  egregia  poemata  scribat  oportet,"  he  proceeds  with  the  coronation. 
The  oration  may  be  found  in  full  in  Cod.  Urh.  387  f.,  169  £f. 

The  productions  of  Barzizza  along  this  line  are  partly  orations  and 
partly  letters,  but  nowhere  is  so  close  an  adherence  to  the  rules  of  rhetoric 
apparent.  The  oration  for  Jacobus  de  Turre  Foroliviensi  {0pp.,  p.  23) 
is  almost  without  this  relation.  Extracts  follow.  "We  come  here  in  great 
numbers,  as  we  did  to  hear  him  speak.     The  literary  world  grieves  most  of 


APPENDICES  6l 

all.  He  surpassed  all  in  scriptural  knowledge.  His  attainments  in  medi- 
cine are  described.  He  knew  the  works  of  Galen  as  well  as  their  author. 
He  is  with  the  blessed.  Gratitude  demands  that  we  remember  him,  as 
I  at  least  shall  do."  Equally  informal,  though  using  some  of  the  consola- 
tory commonplaces,  is  the  consolatory  letter  addressed  to  Fr.  Barbavaria 
after  the  death  of  Zaninus  Riccius  {0pp.,  p.  57) :  "I  have  postponed  writing 
because  of  the  difficulty  I  have  found  in  consoling  myself,  though,  on  account 
of  my  long  life  and  my  study  of  philosophy,  I  ought  to  be  able  to  console 
myself  and  others.  He  showed  his  greatness  especially  in  despising  death. 
He  wished  no  display  of  mourning.  Let  us  not  seem  selfish,  or  forgetful 
of  the  common  lot  of  man.  I  shall  be  all  the  more  devoted  to  you,  because 
you  have  lost  this  friend."  Of  a  different  sort  is  the  letter  to  Petrus  Mar- 
cellus  {0pp.,  p.  85),  which  is  not  at  all  concerned  with  the  deceased,  but 
occupies  itself  entirely  with  the  praise  of  the  living.  More  formal  than 
these,  but  especially  noteworthy  for  its  naivete,  is  the  laudation  of  Manuel 
Chrysoloras  delivered  by  Andreas  Julianus,  who  asserts  that  he  is  perform- 
ing a  service  that  by  rights  belongs  to  Guarino  (Lenfant  Poggiana  II.  327). 


APPENDIX  B 


CLAUSULAE 

I  print  here  the  dausulae  of  our  Consolatio,  sees.  1-18.  without  comment. 
I  add,  for  comparison,  the  clausidae  from  the  first  eight  sections  of  the  first 
book  of  the  Tuscidans,  with  the  dausulae  indicated,  the  dausulae  of  about 
one  folio  column  of  Sigonius  De  dialogo  liber  {0pp.  VI.  435,  ed.  1757), 
the  dausulae  of  about  two  pages  of  Barzizza  {Oratio  ad  pont.  Martin 
V,  0pp.,  pp.  76  ff.),  also  without  comment. 

Consolatio 

mercede  conflatum 


subvenire  calamitati 

aliquando  nobis  ipsis 

leviora  faciamus 

efficere  miseriorem 

animo  vale  re  possis 

corporis  indiget 

parebit  imperio 

ante  nos  scripserunt 

Xenocrate  et  Crantore 

legimus  necessario 

antea  movebamur 

abstergendum  colligemus 

ipsis  medeamur 

maerore  abducere 

quandam  quasi  vim  adferemus 

casus  patienter  ferre 

ideoque  levius  ferendi 

reicere   audeat 

iniustus  merito  haberetur 

iniustitiae   condemnat 

dubitat  appellare 

in  homine  tolerabile 

bellare  videbitur 

multis  tractata  sunt 

ego  Crantorem  sequor 

medicinam  complexus  est 

possis  agnoscere 

atque  incommodorum 

plurimae  amplectuntur 

infimos  adrogantia 


posterorum  non  familiae 

incommoda  removebit 

seiungi  possunt 

cum  aliquo  conferre 

in  uno  agnoscuntur 

enumerare 

maxime  incurrit 

particeps  et  socia  est 

adversis  experitur 

anxia  et  sollicita 

tueri  non  posset 

ac  deterrere  possit 

depulsis  contraximus 

libentissime   redemissemus 

de  me  ipso  praedicare 

omamento  consumpsi 

laudabilis  est  maxime 

ac  miseriis  loquar 

ipse  senum  hominum  patefacit 

viventem  mortuum 

atque  molestiae 

perficere  non  posse 

iuvare  non  possit 

inania  sint  futura 

mihi  videor  dixisse 

generibus  hominum  loquar 

esse  negare  possum 

yoluit  experiri 

exitia  immineant 


62 


APPENDICES 


63 


Tusculans 


eldborarent 

institutis  et  legibus 

\oquar  de  re  milUari 

plus  etiam  discipUna 

gente  sunt  conferenda 

maioribus  nostris  comparanda 

non  repugnantes 

poeticam  nos  accepimus 

cogniti  vel  recepti 

hominum  virtutibus 

poetas  duxisset 

ut  scimus  Ennium 

gloriae  responderunt 

et  Parrhasios  fuisse 

quae^apud  quosque^improbantur 

habitus  indoctior 

doctrina  putabatur 

terminavimus  modum 


omniMO  Graecis  cederetur 
si  possumus  otiosi 
sed  non  satis  eruditis 
eloqui  non  possii 
otio^et  litteris 
sibi  permitti  volunt 
ilia  manabant 
arte  versari 
habere^  auderemus 
eo  genere  possem 
est  declamatio 
ambulans  disputabam 
toiidem  libros  contuli 
ego  contra  dicerem 
arbitrabatur 
quasi  narretur 
nascetur  exordium 


Sigonius 


explicanda  ducamus 
Aristotelem  intelligimus 
qualis  investigetur 
ac  necessariae 
doctrinam  in  dialogo 
disputatione  tradendam 
primus  induxerit 
disciplinae  innixa  sit 
primum  de  prima 
hae  praecipuae  duae 
consuetudine  tracta 
ratiocinandi  altera 


facile   intelligit 
memoriae  commendata 
ipsi  doctrinae  subiret 
subsidium  compararet 
poeta  confugeret 
figura  praestare 
diligentissime  persequi 
diligenter  attenderit 
facile  inveniet 
maxime  possimus 
(See  also  above,  p.  48) 


Barzizza 


perfectum  intuemur 
diutissime  flagravimus 
fundere  solebamus 
felix  nimium  aetas 
gaudia  attulisti 
impares  celebrant 


respicere  mcepenmus 
studium  opinamur 
sumptibus  pepercit 
afflictos  erigeret 
aspectum  abhorrentes 
otiosam  degerent 


64  THE   PSEUDO-CICERONIAN   CONSOLATIO 

acquiescere  fas  sit  antea  diem  aspeximus 

interitu  cogitarent  fluctuabamus 

animarum  pepererint  versas  conspicimus 

discrimen  magnifecit  ascensus  videretur 

esse  debemus  oves  peragravimus 

gaudium  attulerit  eflfudisse  arbitraris 


I 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 
NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


im  7 1  ^^9B 


20,000  (4/94) 


YD  00124 


